Skip to main content

Full text of "The Oxyrhynchus papyri"

See other formats


Brigham Young Univi 

Ϊ rsity 




















ARTHUR S. HUNT, D.Litt., M.A. 






The Offices of the EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND, 37 Great Russell St., W.C. 

AND 8 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass., U.S.A. 

KEG AN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., Paternoster House, Charing Cross Road, W.C. 

BERNARD QUARITCH, 15 Piccadilly, W. ; ASHER & CO., 13 Bedford St., Covent Garden, W.C. 

and HENRY FROWDE, Amen Corner, E.C. 








. 290 


Official and Military Terms 

. 291 


Weights, Measures, and Coins 

. 292 



• 293 


General Index of Greek and Latin Words . . . . 

. 294 


I. 654, 665 

11. 655, 656 [c] verso 

III. 659 (Cols, i-ii and Frs. {a)AJ)) 

IV. 659 (Cols. iii-v and Frs. {m)-{r)) . 

V. 661, 735 

VI. 668 (Col. viii) 

VIL 686, 687, 688, 720 

VIII. 737 (Col. i) 

y at the end. 


664. New Sayings of Jesus (Plate I) . 
β65. Fragment of a Lost Gospel (Plate II) . 
βδβ. Genesis (Plate II) 

657. Epistle to the Hebrews .... 

658. Certificate of Pagan Sacrifice 

659. Pindar Παρθίν^ον and Ode (Plates III and IV) 

660. Paean 

661. Epodes (Plate V) 

662. Epigrams 

663. Argument of Cratinus' ^lowaaKe^avbpos 

664. Philosophical Dialogue .... 

665. History of Sicily (Plate I) . 

666. Aristotle, nporpenriKOs .... 

667. Aristoxenus ? 

668. Epitome of Livy xxxvii-xl and xlviii-lv (Latin) 

(Plate VI) 

669. IMetrological Work 

670-678. Poetical Fragments .... 
679-684. Prose Fragments .... 

685. Homer Iliad xvii 

686-688. Homer Ilmd ii, iii, and xi (Plate VII) . 

689. Hesiod Scufum 

690-691. Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica iii 

692. Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica iv 

693. Sophocles Electra 

694. Theocritus Idyl xiii . 

695. Herodotus ν 

696. Thucydides iv . 

697. Xenophon Cyropaedia i 

698. Xenophon Cyropaedia i 

699. Theophrastus Characters 

A. D. 

3rd cent. 

3rd cent. 

Late 2nd or early 3rd cent. 

Early 4th cent. 

250 ... . 

Late I St cent, b.c. . 

Late I St or early 2nd cent. 

Late 2nd cent. 

About A.D, I 

Late 2nd or early 3rd cent. 

3rd cent. 

2nd cent. 

2nd cent. 

3rd cent. 

3rd cent. 

Early 4th cent. 

ist-3rd cent. 

I St cent. B.c.-3rd cent. . 

2nd cent. 

About A.D. I 

Late 2nd cent. 
3rd-2nd cent. 
2nd cent. 
Early 3rd cent-• 
2nd cent. 
3rd cent, 
ist cent. 
Early 3rd cent. 
Early 3rd cent. 
Early 3rd cent. 








All the theological and most of the classical and the non-literary 
papyri in this volume were discovered in our second excavations at 
Oxyrhynchus in 1903, described in the Archaeological Report of the 
Egypt Exploration Fund, 1902-3, pp. 5-9, and more briefly in the 
Archiv fiir Papyrusforschiing, III. pp. 139-40. The rest came from 
the original Oxyrhynchus find of 1897. Owing to the comparatively 
small space here available for non-literary documents and the discovery 
in 1903 of a group of papyri, mostly of the early Augustan period, 
which is rarely represented, we have published all these together with 
a selection of documents belonging to the next three centuries, instead 
of limiting the documents to the third century, as foreshadowed in the 
preface to Part III. 

In editing the classical pieces, we have, as usual, availed ourselves 
largely of the most generous and valuable assistance of Professor Blass, 
to whom is due much of the reconstruction and interpretation of the 
new classical fragments and the identification of several of those from 
extant authors. The help which we have received on particular points 
from other scholars is acknowledged in connexion with the individual 

In the Appendices we give a list of addenda and corrigenda to 
the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part II, and Fayum Tow?ts and their 
Papyri, a revised text of Part III, no. 405, which has been identified 
as a fragment of Irenaeus, and a list of all the Oxyrhynchus and 
Fayum papyri which have already been distributed among different 
museums and libraries. 



April, 1904. 

a 3 



Preface . ν 

List of Plates ............. vii 

Table of Papyri viii 

Note on the Method of Publication and List of Abbreviations . . . . xi 


L Theological Fragments (654-658) .... 
11. New Classical Fragments (659-684) 
in. Fragments of Extant Classical Authors (685-704) 
IV. Documents ; chiefly of the Roman Period : 
(a) Official (705-712) 
{δ) Applications to Officials (713-716) 
(c) Petitions (717-720) 
{d) Contracts (721-731) 
(i) Receipts (732-734) 
(/) Accounts (735-741) 
{g) Private Correspondence (742-747) 
V. Collations of Homeric Fragments (748-783) . 
VI. Descriptions of Miscellaneous Documents (784-839) 






I. Addenda and Corrigenda to Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part II, and Fayum 

Towns and their Papyri . . . . . . .260 

II. A Revised Text of Part III, no. 405 (Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, iii. 9) 264 
III. List of Oxyrhynchus and FayOm Papyri distributed .... 265 


I. New Literary Fragments . . . 272 

II. Kings and Emperors . . . . . 282 

III. Months and Days 283 

IV. Personal Names 284 

V. Geographical 288 






Demosthenes De Corona 

. 2nd cent 156 


Demosthenes Conira Timocratem 

. Late 2nd or early 3rd cent. 



Demosthenes Contra Boeotum 

2nd cent. 



Aeschines In Ciesiphontem . 

3rd cent. 



Isocrates Contra Sophistas . 

3rd cent. 



Two Petitions to the Emperors with Raphes . 

200-2 . 



Report of Legal Proceedings 

. About 115 



Report of Legal Proceedings 

About 136 



Two Letters to a Strategus 




Tour of Inspection .... 

About 50 




Order for Payment .... 

B.C. Ill 

• 175 


Census-List ..... 

About B.C. 14 



Collection of a Debt .... 

Late 2nd cent. 



Claim of Ownership .... 

. 97 . . 

. 180 


Selection of Boys {ΐπίκρισις) 




Registration of Property 




Auction of a Slave .... 




Petition , 

Late ist cent 




Petition to the Epistrategus 


. 190 


Registration of a Deed 

193 • 



Request for a Guardian (Latin) (Plate VIP 




Sale of Crown Land .... 

13-14 . 



Emancipation of a Slave 
Papyrus Edmondstone 

. 91 or 107 




Emancipation of a Slave . 




Apprenticeship to a Shorthand- Writer . 

155 • 



Apprenticeship to a Weaver 

183 . 



Appointment of a Representative 

135 • 



Delegation of the Duties of a Guardian 




Sale of a Crop 




Lease of a Vineyard .... 




Lease of Domain Land 

130 . 



Engagement of Services 

8-9 . . 



Receipt for the Tax on Ferry-boats 




Tax-Receipt ..... 

147 . 







Graeco-Latin Military Account (Plate V) 




Private Account .... 

About A. D. I 



Latin Account (Plate VIII) 

About A. D. I 



Account of Food 

About A.D. I 




739. Private Account 

740. Account of Corn 

741. List of Articles . 

742. Letter of Antas . 

743. Letter to a Friend 

744. Letter of Ilarion 

745. Letter to Gaius Rustius 

746. Letter of Recommendation 

747. Invitation to a Feast . 
748-783. Homeric Fragments 
784-839. Miscellaneous Documents 



About A.D. t . . . 


About A.D. 200 


2nd cent. 


B.C. 2 . 


B.C. 2 . 


B.C. I . 


About A.D. I . 




Late 2nd or 3rd cent. 

• 247 

I St cent. B.c.-4lh cent. . 


2nd cent. B.c.-2nd cent. 

• 253 


The same general method is followed in the following pages as in preceding 
volumes. As before, a few of the new literary texts are printed in a dual form, 
a reconstruction in modern style accompanying a literal transcript. In other cases, 
and in the fragments of extant authors, the originals are reproduced except for 
division of words, addition of capital initials to proper names, expansion of 
abbreviations, and supplements, so far as possible, of lacunae. In 669, how- 
ever, which is on a rather different level from the other literary pieces, accentua- 
tion and punctuation have been introduced as well as in 658, which strictly does 
not belong to the literary section at all. Additions or corrections by the same 
hand as the body of the text are in small thin type, those by a different hand 
in thick type. Non-literary documents are given in modern style only. Abbre- 
viations and symbols are resolved ; additions and corrections are usually incor- 
porated in the text and their occurrence is recorded in the critical notes, where 
also faults of orthography, &c., are corrected wherever any diiificulty could arise. 
Iota adscript is printed when so written, otherwise iota subscript is used. Square 
brackets [ ] indicate a lacuna, round brackets ( ) the resolution of a symbol or 
abbreviation, angular brackets ( ) a mistaken omission in the original ; double 
square brackets [[ J] mean that the letters within them have been deleted in 
the original, braces { } that the letters so enclosed, though actually written, 
should be omitted. Dots placed within brackets represent the approximate 
number of letters lost or deleted ; dots outside brackets indicate mutilated 
or otherwise illegible letters. Letters with dots underneath them are to be con- 
sidered doubtful. Heavy Arabic numerals refer to the texts of the Oxyrhynchus 
papyri published in this volume and in Parts I-III ; ordinary numerals to lines; 
small Roman numerals to columns. 


The abbreviations used in referring to papyrological publications are prac- 
tically the same as those adopted by Wilcken in Archiv I. i. pp. 25-28, viz.: — 

P. Anih. I and 11 = The Amherst Papyri (Greek), Vols. I and II, by B. P. 

Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 
Archiv — Archiv fur Papyrusforschung. 

B. G. U. = Aeg. Urkunden aus den Konigl. Museen zu Berlin, Griech. Urkunden. 
P. Brit. Mus. I and II = Catalogue of Greek Papyri in the British Museum, 

Vols. I and II, by F. G. Kenyon. 

C. P. R. = Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, Vol. I, by C. Wessely. 

P. Cairo = Greek Papyri in the Cairo Museum, Catalogue by B. P. Grenfell and 

A. S. Hunt. 

P. Catt. = Papyrus Cattaoui {Archiv iii. ^^ sqq.). 

P. Fay. Towns = Fay urn Towns and their Papyri, by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, 

and D. G. Hogarth. 
P. Gen. = Les Papyrus de Geneve, by J. Nicole. 
P. Goodsp. = Greek Papyri, by E. J. Goodspeed {Decennial Publications of the 

University of Chicago, Vol. V). 
P. Grenf. I and II = Greek Papyri, Series I, by B. P. Grenfell; Series II, by 

B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 

P. Oxy. I, II and III = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Parts I, II and III, by B. P. 

Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 
P. Par. = Les Papyrus Grecs du Musee du Louvre {Notices et Extraits, t. xviii. 

2), by W. Brunet de Presle et E. Egger. 
P. Petrie = The Flinders Petrie Papyri, by the Rev. J. P. Mahafify. 
Rev. Laws = Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus, by B. P. Grenfell, with 

Introduction by the Rev. J. P. Mahaffy. 
P. Tebt. I = The Tebtunis Papyri, Part I, by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and 

J. G. Smyly. 
Wilcken, Ost. = Griechische Ostraka, by U. Wilcken. 


654. New Sayings of Jesus. 

24-4 X 7'8 cm. Plate I. 

By a curious stroke of good fortune our second excavations at Oxyrhynchus 
were, like the first, signalized by the discovery of a fragment of a collection of 
Sayings of Jesus. This consists of forty-two incomplete lines on the verso of 
a survey-list of various pieces of land, thus affording another example of the not 
uncommon practice of using the back of ephemeral documents for literary texts. 
The survey-list, which is in a cursive hand of the end of the second or early 
part of the third century, provides a terminus a quo for the writing on the other 
side. This, which is an upright informal uncial of medium size, we should assign 
to the middle or end of the third century ; a later date than A.D. 300 is most 
unlikely. The present text is therefore nearly contemporary with the ' Logia ' 
papyrus discovered in 1897, which also belongs to the third century, though 
probably to an earlier decade. In its general style and arrangement the present 
series of Sayings offers great resemblance to its predecessor. Here, as in the 
earlier * Logia,' the individual Sayings are introduced by the formula ' Jesus saith,' 
and there is the same mingling of new and familiar elements ; but the second 
series of Sayings is remarkable for the presence of the introduction to the whole 
collection (11. 1-5), and another novelty is the fact that one of the Sayings 
(11. "ijS sqq.) is an answer to a question, the substance of which is reported 
(11. '^%-^). It is also noticeable that while in the first series the Sayings had little 
if any connexion of thought with each other, in the second series the first four 
at any rate are all concerned with the Kingdom of Heaven. That the present 



text represents the beginning of a collection which later on included the original 
* Logia ' is very probable ; this and the other general questions concerning the 
papyrus are discussed on pp. 10-23. 

Excluding the introduction, there are parts of five separate Sayings, marked 
off from each other by paragraph!. In three cases (11. 5, 9, and '^6) a coronis 
indicates the end of a sentence, which in the two first cases is also the end of 
the Saying, but in the third is the end of the question to which the Saying is 
the answer. In all three instances the words Aeyet '\ησου5 followed immediately 
after the coronis. In 1. 27, however, there is no coronis at the end of the Saying, 
but there is one after the succeeding Aeyet Ίησοί;?. The scribe is thus inconsistent 
in his employment of this sign, and would seem to have misplaced it in 1. 27, 
unless, indeed, his normal practice was to place a coronis both before and after 
Aeyet Ίησου?, and the absence of a coronis after σιν in 1. 27 is a mere omission. 
It is noteworthy that in 1. 27 a blank space is left where the coronis was to be 
expected. The single column of writing is complete at the top, but broken at 
the bottom and also vertically, causing the loss of the ends of lines throughout. 
From 11. 7-8, 15, 25, and 30, which can be restored with certainty from extant 
parallel passages, it appears that the lacunae at the ends of lines range from 
twelve to sixteen or at most eighteen letters, so that of each line, as far as 1. '^'^, 
approximately only half is preserved. The introduction and the first and fourth 
Sayings admit of an almost complete reconstruction which is nearly or quite 
conclusive, but in the second, third, and fifth, which are for the most part entirely 
new, even the general sense is often obscure, and restorations are, except in a 
few lines, rather hazardous. The difficulties caused by the lacunae are enhanced 
by the carelessness of the scribe himself. The opening words ol toIol 6i Aoyot are 
intolerable, even in third century Greek, and γνωσθξ in 1. 20 and αττοκαλνφησζτ[αί 
in 1. 29 are forms that require correction ; while several instances of the inter- 
change of letters occur, e. g. ei and 7/ in 1. 8 βασιλ^νση, at and e in 1. 23 (ττ^ρωτησ-ξ^ 
and probably in 1. 18 γνω<Γ€σθαι (cf note ad /oc), τ and ^ in 1. 31 θβθαμμζνον, 
and perhaps υ and η in 1. 10 (cf. note ad loc). In two cases (11. 19 and 25) 
words which the scribe had at first omitted are added by him over the line. 
The only contraction which appears is Itjs for Ίτ^σοΰ? ; ττατηρ in 1. 19 and ovpavos 
in 11. 1 1-2 are written out, as usually happens in the earliest theological papyri. 

We proceed now to the text ; in the accompanying translation supplements 
which are not practically certain are enclosed in round brackets. 

For valuable assistance in connexion with the reconstruction, interpreta- 
tion, and illustration of 654, we are indebted to Profs. Blass and Harnack, 
Dr. Bartlet, and Mr. F. P. Badham, but for the general remarks on pp. lo-aa 
we are alone responsible. 



AHceN ilHC ζωΝ K[ ρω ν επερωτΗοε πΑ[ 

ΚΑΙ οωΜΑ ΚΑΙ €ΐπ€Ν [ ρωΝ περι του τοπογ τη[ 


5 ΟΥ ΜΗ revcHTAi ^ [ =5 «^ε "Ο^-^Ο' «CO'-"' W 

^ πΑΥΟΑΟθω ο ΖΗ[ 01 ecxATOi πρώτοι και [ 

eVPH ΚΑΙ ΟΤΑΝ βΥΡΗ [ — ^ ,,„ '"'' ^^^ ' ' 

BHeeiC BACIAeYCH ΚΑ f^•^ Τ"<= °^«^C COY ΚΑΙ [ 

HceTAi :^ Aerei ΐ[ ''"° ^°^ ΑποκΑΑΥΦΗεεκ 

iToTeAKONTec hmac ( ^ο tin κρυπτον ο ογ φαν?! 

ΤΑ πεΤεΐΝΑ του 0ΥΡ[ [. .]€ΤΑΖ0Υ€ΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΝ 0[ 

τι ΫπΟ ΤΗΝ ΓΗΝ eCT[ [. .]rOYCIN πωΟ ΝΗ€Τ€Υ[ 

01 ΪΧΘΥ€€ THC ΘΑΛΑ[ [ ]Μ€ΘΑ ΚΑΙ ΠωΟ [ 

15 Tec YMAC ΚΑΙ Η BAC[ 35 [ ]Α' ΤΙ nAPATHPHC[ 

ewTOC ΫΜωΝ [.jcti [ [. . . . ]ν ^^ Aerei mc [ 
ΓΝω TAYTHN εγρΗ[ [ ]€ΐτΑΐ ΜΗ ποιειτ[ 

eAYTOYC ΓΝωΟεΟΘΑ] [ [. . . . .JHC AAHOeiAC ΑΝ[ 

YMeic [ ]Ν ΑΠοκεκΡΓ 

εετε του hatpoc του π 40 [ ]καρι[. .] εετίΝ [ 

20 ΓΝωοθε εΑΥΤογο εΝ[ |- ' . . ιω εετΓ 

και YMeic ecTe Ηπτο[ |-' \ ' " \ * " \ \ \ * . .' .jjnf 

Introduction. 11. 1-5. 

{θί| τοΓοί οί λόγοί οι [ ο^ί €λά- 

Χησ^ν Ίη(σον)ς ό ζων κ^ύριο^ ? 

καΐ Θωμά και einev [αύτοΐί' ττάς oarts 
άν των λόγωμ τοντ[ων άκονστ} Θανάτου 
5 ου μη γ^ύσηται. 

* These are the (wonderful ?) words which Jesus the living (lord) spake to . . . and 
Thomas, and he said unto (them), Every one that hearkens to these words shall never taste 
of death.' 

The general sense of the introduction is clear, and most of the restorations are fairly 
certain. In 1. i an adjective such as θαυμάσιοι is necessary after οί [. For άκοΰ^ιν with the 
genitive in the sense of ' hearken to ' as distinguished from merely hearing cf. e. g. Luke 

vi. 4 γ πας ό . . . άκοίων μου των \oy<uv και ποιων airovs. For θανάτον\ ου μη γ^ΰσηται, cf. 

Matt, xvi, 28, Mark ix. i, Luke ix. 27, and especially John viii. 52 tav ns τον \oyov μου 

τήρηση, ου μη ■γίύσηται θανάτου eii τον αιώνα. In these passages of the SynoptistS θανάτου 

γ(ύ(σθαι simply means 'die' in the literal sense; but here no doubt, as in the passage in 

Β 2 


St. John, the phrase has the deeper and metaphorical meaning that those who obey Christ's 
words and attain to the kingdom, reach a state unaffected by the death of the body. The 
beginning of 1. i requires some correction, oi roioi oi λόγοι οί being extremely ugly. 
The corruption of οδτοι into oi τοΊοι is not very likely, though cf. Luke xxiv. 44 flnev 8e προς 

avTovs, ovToi ol λόγοι μον ovs (λάλησα προς νμΰς en S)V συν υμίν. But since To'ios is found in 

late prose writers for τοιοσδί, the simplest course is to omit the initial oi. The ι of this 
ot being in a cracl< is not clear in the photograph, but is quite certain. The restoration of 
1. 2 presents the chief difficulty. κ[νριος is very doubtful ; κ[αΊ followed by e. g. αποθανών 
is equally likely, and several of the possible supplements at the end of the line require 
a longer word than κ[νριοί to precede. A dative before και Θωμά is necessary, and three 
alternatives suggest themselves: — (i) a proper name, in which case Φϊλίππω or Ματθία (or 
Ματθαίω) are most likely in the light of the following words και Θωμά. Apocryphal Gospels 
assigned to Thomas, Philip, and Matthias are known, and in Fish's Sophia 70-1 Philip, 
Thomas, and Matthias (so Zahn with much probability in place of Matthew found in 
the text) are associated as the recipients of a special revelation ; cf. Harnack, Altchrist. 
Litierat. I. p. 14 ; (2) a phrase such as tois τϊ άλλοις or τοΊς (ι) μαθηταΐς (so Bartlet, cf 1. 32 and 

John XX. 26 και . . . ήσαν €σω οί μαθηταΐ αυτοΰ κα\ Θωμάς μ€τ' αντων) ; (3) Ιούδα τω] κα\ Θωμά, 

suggested by Prof. Lake, who compares the frequent occurrence of the double name Ίού8ας 
6 κα\ θωμίς in the Ac/s 0/ Thomas. The uncertainty attaching to the restoration is the more 
unfortunate, since much depends on it. If we adopt the first hypothesis, Thomas has only 
a secondary place ; but on either of the other two he occupies the chief position, and this 
fact would obviously be of great importance in deciding the origin of the Sayings; 
cf. pp. 18 sqq. On the question whether the introduction implies a post-resurrectional 
point of view see pp. 13-4. 

There is a considerable resemblance between the scheme of 11. 1-3, oi λόγοι ... ου? 
(λάλησίν Ίησοίς . . . κα\ (ϊπ€ν, and the formulae employed in introducing several of the 
earliest citations of our Lord's Sayings, especially I Clem. 1 3 μάλιστα μ^μνημίνοι των λόγων 

τον κυρίου Ίησοΰ ους (λάλησίν διδάσκων . . . ούτως γαρ elntv, ActS XX. 35 μνημον(ν(ΐν τ€ των 

λόγων τον κυρίου Ίησοΰ οτι αύτος ΐΐπΐν. Rendel Harris had already {Conlemp. Rev. 1897, 
pp. 346-8) suggested that those formulae were derived from the introduction of a primitive 
collection of Sayings known to St. Paul, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, and this theory 
gains some support from the parallel afforded by the introduction in 654. 

First Saying. II. 5-9. 

5 [ Xey€i Ίη{σοΰ)9' 

μη ττανσάσθω δ ζη[των έω? άν 

evpD και όταν evprj [θαμβηθήσ€ται και θαμ- 
βηθ€ί9 βασιλ€νσ€ΐ κα[1 βασιλ^ύσα^ άναπα- 

' Jesus saith. Let not him who seeks . . . cease until he finds, and when he finds 
he shall be astonished; astonished he shall reach the kingdom, and having reached the 
kingdom he shall rest.' 

The conclusion of this Saying is quoted from the Gospel according to the Hebrews by 
Clement of Alexandria {Sirom. ii. 9. 45) jj καν τω κα& Εβραίους (ΰαγγίλίω ό θαυμάσας 


βασιΚΐνσΐΐ γίγραττται και 6 βασϊ\(ύσας άναπαησΐται. In Sirom. V. 14• 9^ (a passage tO which 
Zahn first called attention, Gesch. d. NT. Kan. ii. p. 657) he quotes the Saying in 
a fuller and obviously more accurate form which agrees almost exactly with the papyrus, 

but without stating his source : — ov παΰσΐται 6 ζητών ίως αν fvpt}, ΐΰρων δε θαμβηθησεται, θαμβηθΐΐς 
8e βασίΚΐνσ(ΐ, βασϊλΐύσας δε ΐπαναπαησΐται. The word after ζη\των in 1. 6 is very likely 

the object of ζητών {την ζωην ? ; την βασιλίίαν is too long), but it may be another participle 
depending on πανσάσθω or an adverb. This part of the saying is parallel to Matt, vii. 7 
(=Luke xi. 9) ζητιΊτί κα\ evpr]afTf. The supplements in IL 7-8 are already rather long 
in comparison with the length of lines required in 11. 15, 25, and 30, so that it is improbable 
that (παναπαησίται is to be supplied or that δ occurred in the papyrus before θαμβηθάς 
and βασιλΐύσας (cf. the first quotation from Clement). 6 8e in place of καΐ is of course 
possible in 1. 7, but since the papyrus has και and not be in 1. 8 καί is more likely also 
in 1. 7. The occurrence of θαμβηθ^ίς, not θανμάσας, in 11. 7-8, confirms Zahn's acute 
suggestion {Gesch. d. NT. Kan, ii. p. 657) that θαμβηβ^ was the original word; but we 
should not accept his ingenious explanation of it as a mistranslation of a Hebrew or 
Aramaic verb which could also mean θορνβηθΐΐ^, and his view that σνντΐτρψμίνος (cf. 
Luke iv. 18) would have been the right term. The attractiveness of this kind of conjecture 
is, as we have recently had occasion to remark (403 introd.), only equalled by its uncer- 
tainty. Now that the Saying is known in its completer form, and if we disregard the particular 
object (to show that the beginning of philosophy is wonder) to which Clement in the 
first of his two quotations turns it, this description of the successive stages in the attainment 
of the kingdom of Heaven seems to us decidedly striking, and by no means so far removed 
from the 'Anschauungen des echten Urchristenthums ' as Resch {Agrapha, pp. 378-9) 
considers. To the probable reference to it in II Clem. v. 5 (cf. the next note) η hk 

enayyikia τον Χρίστου μ(•γά\η και θαυμαστή εστίν κα\ άνάπανσΐί της /χίλλουστ;? βασιλΐίας κα\ ζωη^ 

αΐωνίον, quoted by Resch {I.e.), Mr. Badham adds a remarkable one in the Acfs of Thomas 

(ed. Bonnet, p. 243) οί άξίω: μ€τάλαμβάνοντ€5 των e/cet αγαθών αναπαύονται καΐ άναπαυόμΐνοι 
βασΐΚΐνσουσιν . 

As Dr. Bartlet aptly remarks, the idea of the necessity for strenuous effort in order 
to attain to the kingdom has much in common, not only with the 3rd Saying ουκ άποκνησΐΐ 
αν^ρωπο! κ.τ.λ., but with the 5th Logion ('Raise the stone and there thou shalt find me'); 
cf. pp. 12-3. 

Second Saying. II. 9-21. 

Xeyet Ί[η{σοΰί' rtVey 

10 01 ΐλκο}/Τ€ί ήμάί [ety την βασιλίίαν e/ 

ή βασιλξία kv ονρα\νω kariv ; 

τα π€Τ€ΐνα τον ούρ[ανον καΐ των θηρίων ο- 

* Since this volume was put into type, Harnack has expressed his views of this Agraphon in 
Sitzungsber. d. Berl. Akad. 1904, pp. 175-9. He there shows in opposition to Zahn that astonishment 
is to be interpreted here as a sign of joy, not of fear, and strongly repels the unfavourable criticisms of 
Resch upon the Saying, of which Harnack in fact maintains the substantial genuineness. Incidentally, 
as he also remarks, the close parallelism between the language of the papyrus and Clement is important, 
for from whatever source this Saying found its way into the present collection, it cannot have come through 
Clement. There is, therefore, good reason to think that the Gospel according to the Hebrews (or at 
least a part of it) was known in Egypt in a Greek version at an early period, a view which has been 
disputed by Zahn. 


Ti ύπο την γην kaT\iv η knl τήί γης και 
οΐ ίχθν€9 rfjs βα\ά[σσης οντοι oi ίλκον^ 

15 τ^^ υμάς, και ή βασ[ι\Ηα των ουρανών 
ivTos υμών [1]στι [και όστις αν Ιαυτον 

γνω ταντην €νρή[σ€ΐ 

iavTOvs γνώσΐσθξ [και €ίδήσ€Τ€ οτι νιοι 
€στ€ νμζΐς τον πατρός του τ[ 

2θ γνώσ(ΐσ)θζ έαντονς €v[ 

καΐ νμζΐς €στ€ ηπτο[ 

' Jesus saith, (Ye ask ? who are those) that draw us (to the kingdom, if) the kingdom 
is in Heaven ? ... the fowls of the air, and all beasts that are under the earth or upon the 
earth, and the fishes of the sea, (these are they which draw) you, and the kingdom of Heaven 
is within you ; and whoever shall know himself shall find it. (Strive therefore ?) to know 
yourselves, and ye shall be aware that ye are the sons of the . . . Father ; (and ?) ye shall 
know yourselves . . . and ye are . . .* 

The reconstruction of this, the longest and most important of the Sayings, is extremely 
difficult. Beyond the supplements in 1. 15 which are based on the parallel in Luke xvii. 21 
with the substitution of τών οΐρανων, St. Matthew's phrase, for St. Luke's τον θΐον which 
is too short for the lacuna, and those in 11. 12-3, 16, and 18, the general accuracy of 
which is guaranteed by the context, it is impossible to proceed without venturing into 
the region of pure conjecture. There seems to be no direct parallel to or trace of this 
Saying among the other non-canonical Sayings ascribed to our Lord, and the materials 
provided by 11. 10-12 — ol ελκονπί, the kingdom of Heaven and the fowls of the air — are 
at first sight so disparate that the recovery of the connexion between them may seem 
a hopeless task. But though no restoration of 11. 9-14 can hope to be very convincing, and 
by adopting different supplements from those which we have suggested, quite another 
meaning can no doubt be obtained (see below), we think that a fairly good case can 
be made out in favour of our general interpretation. The basis of it is the close parallelism 
which we have supposed to exist between 1. 15 rts ΰμας καί η βασ[ιλ(ία των ουρανών and, 
on the other hand, 1. 10 οί ΐ\κοντΐί ήμΰς followed in 1. 11 by 17 βασιλΐία iv ουρα\νω, whereby we 
restore oi ΐλκον] at the end of 1. 14. If this be granted 11. 9-16 divide themselves naturally 
into two parallel halves at the lacuna in 1. 11, 11. 9-10 corresponding to 11. 12-5, and 1. 11 
to 11. 15-6. How is this correspondence to be explained? The simplest solution is to 
suppose that 11. 9-n are a question to which 11. 12-6 form the answer ; hence we supply 
Tivts in 1. 9 ; cf. the 5th Saying, which is an answer to a question. A difficulty then arises 
that we have «''"Όΐτίί ημΰΐ in 1. 10 but ΐλκον'^τ^ς νμα: in 11. 14-5. This may be a mere 
accident due to the common confusion of vpfn and ^/lels in papyri of this period, and 
perhaps ύ/χάί should be read in both cases. But ημάς in 1. 10 can be defended in two ways, 
by supposing either that Jesus here lays stress rather on His human than on His divine 
nature, and associates Himself with the disciples, or that the question is put into the mouth 
of the disciples, i. e. the word before nWr was ίρωτατΐ or the like. There remains, however, 
the greatest crux of all, the meaning of fXKovrts. In the two passages in which this word 


occurs in the New Testament it has an unfavourable sense ; but here a favourable meaning 
is much more likely, as with ίΚκύην in John vi. 44 f'av μη 6 πατήρ . . . ίλκυση αυτόν and xii. 32 
τνάντας ίλκύσω προς ΐμαντόν : Mr. Badham compares Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. 6 tovs ph yap (i.e. 

wild beasts of sinners) προτρίπα 6 Kvpios rots Se η8η ^γχ(ΐρήσασι κα\ χΰρα opeya κα\ ave^Kfi, and 
{dtd. v. 12 ^ Ισχνς τον Λόγου . . . πάντα τον Karahf^pevov και fVTos eavrov προς ίαντήν (Κκ€ΐ. 

Α phrase such as eU τήν βασιΚ^ίαν is required to explain ΐΚκοντΐς, though even with this 
addition the use of that word in such a context must be admitted to be difficult. The idea 
in 11. 12-6 seems to be that the divine element in the world begins in the lower stages 
of animal creation, and rises to a higher stage in man, who has within him the kingdom of 
Heaven ; cf. Clement's discussion {S/rom. v. 13) of Xenocrates' view that even άλογα ζώα 
possibly liad some τον θείον ewoia, and the curious sanctity of certain animals in the various 
Apocryphal Acts, e. g. Thecla's baptized lioness, Thomas's ass, Philip's leopard and kid 
buried at the door of the church. It is possible that there is some connexion between this 
Saying and the use of Luke xvii. 21 by the Naassenes; cf. p. 18. The transition from 
the inward character of the kingdom to the necessity for self-knowledge (11. 16-21) is 
natural. Since the kingdom is not an external manifestation but an inward principle, 
men must know themselves in order to attain to its realization. The old Greek proverb 
γνώθι aeavTov is thus given a fresh significance. Mr. Badham well compares Clem. Paedag. 

lii. I r\v Spa ως eotKC πάντων μίγιστον μαθημάτων το γνωναι αντόν' ίαντον γάρ τις tav γνωη 

0f6v eiafTat. For the restoration of 1. 16, cf. 1. 18. ταύτην in 1. 17 is the βασιλΐία. 
This line may have ended with something like όπως ovv, if we are right in correcting 
γνώσΐσθαι to γνωσεσθε (cf. the similar confusion in 1. 23). For νίοί, Avhich is required 
by the context in 1. 18, cf. e.g. Luke xx. 36. τ[ in 1. 19 {π[ is equally possible) is perhaps 
the beginning of an adjective, but τοντ[ον χάριν, e.g., might also be read. How γνωσθε 
in I. 20 is to be emended is uncertain; we suggest γνώσ(ίσ)θε, but the corruption may 
go deeper. ti{ is perhaps eV[TOs της βασιλείας. ηΐΓτο[ in 1. 21 is very obscure ; the letter 
following r may be f, ο or ω ; but neither if η is the article, nor if 7;7γτο[ is one word, does any 
suitable restoration suggest itself. η7ττο[ can hardly be a participle, for if λίγει Ίη{σον)ς 
occurred, as would be expected, at the end of the line, there is room for only about four 
more letters in the lacuna. It is tempting to read ή π{τ}ό[λις, with €ν[τη πάλει τον θεον in 1. 20, 
as Blass suggests, comparing for the omission of οντάς Mark vi. 20 εΐ^ως αντόν avSpa δίκαιον. 
Another and quite different restoration of the early part of this Saying is suggested by 

Dr. Bartlet, who would read λίγει Ί[ί^(σοΰ)ϊ• μή φοβείτωσαν] οΊ ελκοντες νμάς [επΧ της γης, νμών 
γαρλ ή βασιλεία εν ονραϊνώ καΐ ύφ' νμΐν εσταιΐ τα πετεινα τον ονρ\ανον κα\ πάν ζώον δ] τι νπο τήν γήν 

ε'στ[ιν τά τε επ\ γης κα\] οι ϊχθίιες της θαλά[σσης . . ., comparing the idea in Epistle of Barnabas, 

vi. 12 and 18 τίς ovv 6 8ννάμενος vvv αρχειν "θηρίων ή Ιχθύων ή πετεινών τον ονρανον ; αίσθάνεσθαι 
γαρ όφειλομεν οτι το αρχειν εξονσίας εστίν, ινα τις επιτάζας κνριενστ]. ει ονν υν γίνεται τοντο 
ννν, αρα ήμ'ιν εϊρηκεν πότε' όταν κα\ αντοί τελειωθώμεν, κληρονόμοι της διαθήκης κνρίον γενέσθαι, 
and II Clem. v. 4 ftTrcv 6 Ίησονς τω ΤΙετρω' μή φοβείσθωσαν τα άρνία τονς λύκονς . . . 
και γινώσκετε, αδελφοί, οτι ή επιδημία ή εν τω κόσμω τούτω της σαρκός ταντης μικρά eVri και 

όλιγοχρόνιος, ή δε επαγγελία τον Χριστον κ.τ.λ. (a passage resembling the I St Saying; cf. 
note, ad loc). The parallels from Barnabas and Clement perhaps give this restoration 
some advantage over ours, but ελκοντες alone without an explanatory phrase is not 
a satisfactory word for ' persecute,' and the transition from the promise of the kingdom 
of Heaven to the fowls of the air is very abrupt and almost inconsequent, while it is difficult 
to find the connexion between the fowls of the air and the second mention of the kingdom 
of Heaven. This, the chief problem in the 2nd Saying, seems more easily explained by 
the hypothesis of a repetition of ελκοντες and the resulting parallelism between the two 
halves of 11. 9-16 which we have suggested. 


Third Saying. 11. 21-7. 

[ Xeyet Ίη(σον)ς' 

ovK άποκνήσει άνΘ[ρωποί 

ρων ίπ^ρωτήσαι πα[ 

ρων π€ρι του τόπον τη[ί 

25 σ€Τ€ ΟΤΙ πολλοί έσονται 7τ[ρώτοι ξσχατοι καϊ 

οΐ ίσγατοί πρώτοι καϊ [ 


' Jesus saith, A man shall not hesitate ... to ask . . . concerning his place (in the 
kingdom. Ye shall know) that many that are first shall be last and the last first and 
(they shall have eternal life?).' 

Line 24 may well have continued τη[ς βασι\(ίας followed by a word meaning 'know' 

(? ίϊ8η<Τ€Τ€, or γνώσίΤ€ Or άκούσ€Τ€, for yvaaerai or άκούσίται), but the double -ρων in 

11. 23 and 24 is very puzzling, and in the absence of a clear parallel we forbear to restore 
the earlier part of the Saying. Dr. Bartlet suggests a connexion %vith the Apocalypse 

of Peter, e. g. § 4 κάγώ %!^ψ αυτά' και που eiVt navres οί δίκαιοι η ττοΐό: ΐσην 6 αΙων ev ω ΐίσι 
ταυτην ίχοντίς την δόξαν, § ζ οντό: eoTiv 6 τόπος των άρχίρων (1. αρχαίων, Bartlet) νμων των δικαίων 
ανθρώπων, taking αρχαίων tO be equivalent to πρίσβυτίρων in Heb. xi. 2, or to πατέρων ; 

cf. Matt. V. 21, 33 ερρίθη To'is άρχαίοις and Luke ix. 8, 19. But the problem was an old one. 

Lines 25-6 πο\λο\ . . . πρώτοι follow Mark X. 31 (=Matt. xix. 30) ττολλοί δί Ισονται πραη-οί 

ΐσχατοι κα\ οι ΐσχατοι πρώτοι. In the insertion of οί before ίσχατοι the papyrus agrees with 
BC and many MSS. in Mark x. 31 ; ^ίD and other ]\ISS. omit οί there, and in 
Matt. xix. 30 oi is generally omitted, though found in C and some others. Luke xiii. 30 

is rather longer, κα\ Ιδού elalv ίσχατοι οί ίσονται πρώτοι κα\ eia\v πρώτοι οι ίσονται έσχατοι. 

σιν in 1. 27 is no doubt the termination of a verb : ζωψ {αΐώνιον) κΚηρονομησου]σιν (Matt. 

xix. 29) and μΐτ ('μοϋ βασι\€ύσου]σιν are tOO long, but ζωην αΙώνων e|ou]atv (cf. John iu. 1 6, 36, 

V. 24, &c.) is possible. 

Fourth Saying. 11. 27-31. 

Xeyet Ίη(σοϋ)ς' [παν τδ μη ίμπροσ- 
β^ν τήί οψεωί σου και [το κ^κρυμμ^νον 
άπο σου άποκαλυφ{θ)ήσίτ[αί σοι. ου γάρ €σ- 
3θ τιν κρνπτον ο ου φαν€[ρον γΐρήσ€ται 
και τίθαμμίνον ο ο[ύκ ίγ€ρθήσ€ται. 

' Jesus saith, Everything that is not before thy face and that which is hidden from thee 
shall be revealed to thee. For there is nothing hidden which shall not be made manifest, 
nor buried which shall not be raised.' 

The sense of this Saying is clear, and the supplements are fairly certain. Lines 29-30 


are parallel to Matt. X. 26 ovbev yap ianv κίκάΚυμμίνον ο ουκ άποκάΚυφθησεται και κρνπτον ο ον 
γνωσθησίται, Luke χϋ. 2 ovSev 8e <ητγκ(κα\υμμίνον ίστΧν ο ουκ άποκα\υφθησ€ται και κρνπτον δ ου 
γνωσθησίται '. cf. Mark iv. 2 2 ου yap ΐστιν κρυτττον iav μη ινα φαν€ρωβτ) ουδέ iyevero απόκρυφου αλλ* 

Ινα ΐκθτι els φανερόν. In general arrangement the papyrus agrees with Matthew and Luke 
perhaps more than with Mark ; but the language of the first half of the sentence is 
much closer to that of Mark (whose expression eau μη ΐρα φανίρωθβ instead of the more 
pointed δ ου φανερώθησ^ται suggests the hand of an editor), while that of the second half 
diverges from all three, τΐθαμμίνον makes a more forcible contrast to κρνπτον than 
the corresponding word in the Synoptists, which is merely a synonym. Instead of 
iyepBrjaeTat a more general word such as yvaaSrfaeTai can be supplied ; but this detracts from 
the picturesqueness of what is in any case a striking variation of a well-known Saying. 

Fifth Saying. 11. 33-42. 

[€^]€7ί£^οΐ'σίί/ αύτον ο[ί μαθηταΐ αντοΰ και 

[λί]γονσιν' πώ? νηστίΐ^σομζν καΐ πώ? . . . 

[ ]μ€θα και πω? [ 

35 [. • . . κ]αΙ τί παρατηρήσ[ομ€ν 

[ ]ν; Xiyu Ίη(σ•ου)9' [ 

[ ]€ΐται μη 7rot€iT[e 

[ jijs άληθζία^ άν[ 

[ y ά[π]οκ€κρ[υ 

40 [ μα]κάρι[69] ίστιν [ 

[ ]ω €στ[ι 

[ Η 

* His disciples question him and say, How shall we fast and how shall we (pray ?) . . . 
and what (commandment) shall we keep . . . Jesus saith, ... do not . . . blessed is he . . .' 

Though this Saying is broken beyond hope of recovery, its general drift may be 
caught. It clearly differed from the other Sayings, both in this papyrus and the first 
series of Logia, in having a preliminary paragraph giving the occasion, which seems 
to be a question put by the disciples; cf. p. 15. For ίξίτάζίΐν in reference to them 

cf. John Xxi. 12 oiteh Be €τά\μα των μαθητών εξίτάα-αι αυτόν' συ τις et', etSoris δτι ό κύριος eariv. 

αυτοΰ in 1. Ι is not very satisfactory, but something more than μαθηταί is required, and 
cf. 655. 17-8. ΦαρισαΙοι is not likely in the light of what follows. The question clearly 
consisted of a number of short sentences, each beginning with πά? or τί, and so far 
as can be judged, they were concerned with the outward forms of religion, fasting, 
prayer {πpoσeυξo]μfθa ?), and almsgiving. How far, it is probably asked, are existing Jewish 
ordinances to be kept? The answer of Jesus appears to have been a series of short 
commandments insisting on the inner side of religion as the pursuit of virtue and truth, and 
very likely concluding in 1. 40 with the promise ' Blessed is he who doeth these things.' If 
this explanation is on the right lines, there is a general parallelism between this Saying and 


Matt. xix. 16-22 and Luke xviii. 18-22, but the occurrence of αλήθεια and ά[π]οκΐκρ[υμμ€νον (?) 
suggests that the language was more Johannine in character. Line 39, as Prof. Lake 
remarks, could be restored on the basis of Rev. ii. 17 το μάν]να [τ]6 κ(κρ[νμμίνον. The 
reference to fasting in 1. 33 suggests a connexion with the 2nd Logion (' Except ye fast to the 
world '), which may well have been an answer to a similar question by the disciples. 

We do not propose to enter upon a detailed examination of the numerous and compli- 
cated problems involving the Canonical and Apocryphal Gospels and the 'Logia' of 1897, 
which are reopened by the discovery of the new Sayings. But we may be permitted to 
indicate the broader issues at stake, and in the light of the wide discussion of the Logia of 
1897 to point out some effects of the new elements now introduced into the controversy. 

We start therefore with a comparison of the two series of Sayings (which we shall 
henceforth call 1 and 654). Both were found on the same site and the papyri are of 
approximately the same date, which is not later than about the middle of the third 
century, so that both collections must go back at least to the second century. The outward 
appearance of the two papyri is indeed different, 1 being a leaf from a handsomely-written 
book, which may well have been a valuable trade-copy, while 654 is in roll form and was 
written on the verso of a comparatively trivial document. The practice of writing impor- 
tant literary texts on such material was, however, extremely common, and the form of 654 
lends no support to the hypothesis that the papyrus is a collection of notes made by the 
writer himself. In the uncial character of the handwriting, the absence of abbreviations 
and contractions other than those usually found in early theological MSS., and the careful 
punctuation by the use of the paragraphus and coronis, 654 shares the characteristics of an 
ordinary literary text such as 1. Since 1 is the nth page of a book, it must have formed 
part of a large collection of Sayings, while 654 comes from the beginning of a manuscript 
and provides no direct evidence of the length of the roll. But the document on the recto 
is not a letter or contract which would be likely to be short, but an official land-survey 
list, and these tend to be of very great length, e.g. P. Brit. Mus. 267, P. Tebt. I. 84-5. The 
recently published Leipzig papyrus of the Psalms (Heinrici, Beiir. z. Gesch. d. NT. iv), 
though incomplete at the beginning and end, contains as many as thirty-six columns written 
in cursive on the verso. So far therefore as can be judged from externals, 654 like 1 
probably belongs to an extensive collection of Sayings which may well have numbered 
several hundreds. 

Turning next to the contents of the two papyri, no one can fail to be struck with their 
formal resemblance. Postponing for the moment the introduction of 654 (11. 1-5), which, 
since it necessarily presupposes the existence of the Sayings introduced and may have been 
added later, stands on a different footing from the Sayings and requires separate treatment, 
the five Sayings partly recorded in 654 begin like those in 1 with the simple formula Xeyei 
'ijjCToCr ; and both fragments contain Sayings which to a greater or less degree have parallel 
passages in the Synoptic Gospels side by side with Sayings which are new. In 1 the style 
was simple and direct, and the setting, with the constant balancing of the words and sentences 
and the absence of connecting particles, highly archaic ; the same features, though obscured 
unfortunately by the incompleteness of the papyrus, are also distinctly traceable in 654. 
There is, however, one difference in the two papyri in point of form. To the 5th Saying 
in 654 (11. 36 sqq.) is prefixed (11. 32-6) a brief account of the question to which it was the 
answer. This may prove to be of great importance in deciding the origin of these Sayings, 
but for our present purpose it is sufficient to point out that even in 654 the occurrence of 
the context is the exception, not the rule, and the fact that the Sayings in 1 agree with the 


first four Sayings in 654 in omitting the context rather than with the 5th obviously produces 
no serious conflict between the two documents. 

We proceed to a closer examination of the two series. In 1 the 7th Logion (* A city 
built on a hill ') is connected with St. Matthew's Gospel alone ; the 6th (' A prophet is not 
acceptable ') has a noticeable point of contact with St. Luke in the use of the word beKTOs, 
and the ist also agrees with St. Luke. The 5th ('Wherever there are') starts with a parallel 
to St. Matthew, but extends into a region far beyond. Nowhere in 1 can the influence of 
St. Mark be traced, nor was there any direct parallel with St. John's Gospel ; but the new 
Sayings, both in thought and expression, tended to have a mystical and Johannine character. 
In 654 we have one Saying (the 2nd) of which the central idea is parallel to a passage 
found in St. Luke alone, but of which the developments are new ; the conclusion of the 3rd 
Saying connects with St. Matthew and St. Mark rather than with St. Luke, while the 4th is 
a different version of a Saying found in all three Synoptists, and is on the whole nearer to 
St. Mark than to the other two Evangelists. The ist Saying and, so far as we can judge, 
the 5th have little, if any, point of contact with the Canonical Gospels. As in 1, so in 654 
the new elements tend to have a Johannine colouring, especially in the 2nd Saying; but 
some caution must be observed in tracing connexions with St. John's theology. The ist 
Saying, if the papyrus had been the sole authority for it, might well have seemed nearer in 
style to St. John than to the Synoptists ; yet as a matter of fact it occurred in the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews, a very early work which is generally admitted to have been 
originally written in Hebrew and to have been independent of the Canonical Gospels, most 
of all St. John's. On the other hand, while the Sayings in 654 contain nothing so markedly 
Johannine in style as e.g. Ί stood in the midst of the world . . .' in 1. 1 1 sqq., the introduction 
contains a clear parallel to John viii. 52. This at first sight may perhaps seem to imply 
a knowledge of St. John's Gospel on the part of the author of the introduction, but it must 
be remembered (i) that St. John may well not have been the sole authority for the attribu- 
tion of that Saying to our Lord, and if so, that the author of the introduction may have 
obtained it from another source, (2) that a knowledge of St. John's Gospel on the part of 
the author of the introduction does not necessarily imply a corresponding debt to that 
Gospel in the following Sayings, which, as we have said, stand on a somewhat different 
footing from the introduction. 

In our original edition of 1 we maintained {a) that the Sayings had no traceable thread 
of connexion with each other beyond the fact of their being ascribed to the same speaker, 
(<5) that none of them implied a post-resurrectional point of view, {c) that they were not in 
themselves heretical, and that though the asceticism of Log. 2 and the mystic character of 
Log. 5 were obviously capable of development in Encratite and Gnostic directions, the 
Sayings as a whole were much nearer in style to the New Testament than to the apocryphal 
literature of the middle and end of the second century. If these positions have been 
vigorously assailed, they have also been stoutly defended, and about the second and third no 
general agreement has been reached ; with regard to the first the balance of opinion has 
been in favour of our view, and the various attempts to trace a connexion of ideas running 
through the Sayings have met with little acceptance. What answer is to be returned to 
the corresponding problems in 654 ? 

We will take the third question first. Is there anything in 654 to show that the 
Sayings originated in or circulated among a particular sect ? We should answer this in 
the negative. There is nothing heretical in the introduction, the ist, 3rd, and 4th Sayings, 
or, so far as can be judged, the 5th. The Encratite leanings which have been ascribed to 
the 2nd Logion are conspicuously absent in 654; the remains of the 5th Saying in fact 
rather suggest an anti-Jewish point of view, from which however the 2nd Logion itself 


was not widely distant, if, as we strongly hold, νηστ€νσητ€ and σαββατίζητί are to be taken 
metaphorically. The absence of any Jewish-Christian element in 654 is the more 
remarkable seeing that the ist Saying also occurs in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 
The only Saying that is at all suspicious is the 2nd, which like Log. 5 is sure to be called 
in some quarters ' Gnostic' That the profoundly mystical but, as it seems to us, obviously 
genuine Saying of our Lord recorded in Luke xvii. 21 'The kingdom of God is within you' 
should have given rise to much speculation was to be expected, and from Hippolytus 
Refut. V. 7 it is known that this Saying occupied an important place in the doctrines of the 
Naassenes, one of the most pronounced Gnostic sects of the second or early third century. 
That there is a connexion between the Sayings and the Naassenes through the Gospel of 
Thomas is quite possible and this point will be discussed later (pp. 1 8-9) ; but to import 
Naassene tenets into the 2nd Saying in 654 is not only gratuitous but a Ccrrepov πράτ^ρυν. 
Moreover, though the other ideas in the Saying connected with the parallel from St. Luke, 
the development of the kingdom of Heaven through brute creation up to man (if that be 
the meaning of 11. 9-16), and the Christian turn given to the proverbial -γνωθί aeavrov 
(11. 16-21), may point to a later stage of thought than that found in the Canonical Gospels, 
the 2nd Saying as a whole, if 'Gnostic,' presents a very primitive kind of Gnosticism, and 
is widely separated from the fully-developed theosophy of e. g. the Pisiis Sophia. In any 
case the ' Gnosticism ' of 654 is on much the same level as that of 1. 

Do any of the Sayings (apart from the introduction) imply a post-resurrectional point 
of view ? This too we should answer in the negative. There is not only nothing in them 
to indicate that they were spoken after the resurrection, but substantial evidence for the 
opposite view. The familiar Sayings in the Canonical Gospels which are parallel to those 
found in 654 are there assigned to our Lord's lifetime, including even John viii. 52. The 
Gospel according to the Hebrews with which the ist Saying is connected covered the same 
ground as the Synoptists, and there is no reason to suppose that this Saying occurred 
there as a post-resurrectional utterance. But the best argument is provided by the 5th 
Saying, especially its context which is fortunately given. The questions there addressed to 
Jesus clearly belong to a class of problems which are known to have been raised by our 
Lord's disciples and others in his lifetime, and, if ίξΐτάζουσιν is in any case a somewhat 
stronger term than would be expected, seeing that the disciples seem to be the subject 
(though cf. John xxi. 12), it is most unlikely that this word would have been used with 
reference to the risen Christ. In fact none of the five Sayings in 654 suggests a post- 
resurrectional point of view so much as the 3rd Logion (* I stood in the midst of the 
world'); cf. pp. 13-4. 

Can a definite principle or train of ideas be traced through the Sayings ? The first 
four are certainly linked together by the connecting idea of the kingdom of Heaven, which 
is the subject to a greater or less degree of all of them. But between the 4th and 5th 
Sayings the chain is certainly much weaker and threatens to snap altogether. It is very 
difficult to believe that if 654 was part of a large collection of similar Sayings a connexion 
of thought could have been maintained throughout, and the Sayings in the later columns of 
654 may well have been as disconnected as those in 1. Even in the five which are partly 
preserved in 654 there is a constant change in the persons addressed, the ist and 3rd being 
couched in the third singular, the 2nd and almost certainly the 5th in the second plural, and 
the 4th in the second singular. Moreover the real link is, we think, supplied by the intro- 
duction, the consideration of which can no longer be delayed. Only before proceeding 
further we would state our conviction that in all essential points, the date of the papyrus, 
the form of the Sayings, their relation to the Canonical Gospels, and the general character 
of the new elements in them, to say nothing of the parallelism of thought between the ist and 


3rd Sayings and the 5th Logion (cf. p. 5), the resemblances between 654 and 1 so far 
outweigh the differences that for practical purposes they may be treated as parts of the 
same collection. Even if it ever should be proved that the first page of 1 did not coincide 
with 654, the two fragments so clearly reflect the same surroundings and mental conditions 
that we cannot regard as satisfactory any explanation of the one which is incompatible with 
the other. 

' These are the . . . words which Jesus the living . . , spake to . . . and Thomas, and he said 
unto them " Every one that hearkens to these words shall never taste of death." ' Such is the 
remarkable opening prefixed to the collection of Sayings in 654 by its unknown editor. 
The first point to be noticed is that the name given to the collection is, as was acutely 
divined by Dr. Lock {Two Lectures on the Sayings of Jesus, p. 16), \6yQi not \oyi.a, and all 
questions concerning the meaning of the latter term may therefore be left out of account in 
dealing with the present series of Sayings. The converse of this, however, in our opinion 
by no means holds good, and as we have pointed out (p. 4), the analogy of the present 
document has a considerable bearing upon the problems concerning an early collection of 
λόγια. Secondly, the collection is represented as being spoken either to St. Thomas alone 
or to St. Thomas and another disciple or, less probably, other disciples. Does the compiler 
mean that the Sayings were the subject of a special revelation to St. Thomas and perhaps 
another disciple, from Avhich the rest were excluded ? In other words is this introduction 
parallel to that passage in the Pistis Sophia 70-1 in which mention is made of a special 
revelation to SS. Philip, Thomas, and Matthias (or Matthew ; cf. p. 4) ? The case in favour 
of an afiirmative answer to this query would be greatly strengthened if the introduction pro- 
vided any indication that the editor assigned his collection of Sayings to the period after 
the Resurrection But no such evidence is forthcoming. We do not wish to lay stress on 
ο ζών in 1. 2 owing to the uncertainty attaching to the word that follows ; but the phrase 
6 ζων certainly does not point to the post-resurrection period. In the Canonical Gospels 
St. Thomas is made prominent only in connexion with that period (John xx. 24 sqq.), but 
this circumstance, which is probably the strongest argument in favour of a post-resurrectional 
point of view, is discounted by the fact that the Gospel of Thomas, so far as can be 
judged, was not of the nature of a post-resurrectional Gospel but rather a Gospel of the 
childhood (cf. pp. 18-9), and, secondly, seems to be outweighed by the indications in 
the Sayings themselves (cf. p. 12) that some of them at any rate were assigned to Jesus' 
lifetime. The force of the second argument can indeed be turned by supposing, as 
Dr. Bartlet suggests, that the standpoint of the collection, both in 1 and 654, is that 
of a post-resurrection interview in which the old teaching of Christ's lifetime is declared 
again in relation to the larger needs of Christian experience. But such a view necessarily 
implies that 11. 1-3 define a particular occasion (e. g. that contemplated in John xx. 26) on 
which the Sayings were spoken in their present order, and to this hypothesis there are grave 
objections. The use of the aorists ίλάλησίν and e'Tre»' in 654. 2-3 does not prove that one 
occasion only was meant. The repetition of Xtyu ^Ιησοϋς before each of the Sayings seems 
very unnecessary if they are part of a continuous discourse. The difliculty of tracing 
a connexion of ideas throughout 654, and still more throughout 1, and the frequent 
changes in the persons addressed provide fresh obstacles to such an interpretation ; and the 
inappropriateness of the word εξ€τάζουσι in connexion with the risen Christ has already been 
alluded to (p. 12). To suppose that 654. 3-31 is a speech in itself, that 11. 32-6 revert 
to the original narrative broken off at 1. 3 and that 1 is part of a later discourse appears to 
us a very strained interpretation. 

We are not therefore disposed to consider that the introduction to the Sayings, any 
more than the Sayings by themselves, implies a post-resurrectional point of view on the part 


of the compiler, still less that the background of the Sayings is at all the same as that con- 
templated in the Pislis Sophia, which belongs to a later stage of thought than the Sayings. 
Hence we are not prepared to accept an analogy derived from that or any other similar 
treatise as an argument for thinking that the editor by his introduction meant to imply 
that St. Thomas or St. Thomas and some one else were the sole hearers of the Sayings. 
What we think he did mean to imply was that the ultimate authority for the record of 
these Sayings was in his opinion St. Thomas or St. Thomas and another disciple. This 
hypothesis provides a satisfactory, in fact we think the only satisfactory, explanation of the 
frequent changes of persons and abrupt transitions of subject which characterize the Sayings 
as a whole. 

Thirdly, the editor enforces the momentous claim which he has made for the authori- 
tative character of the Sayings by quoting a sentence which, with several variations of 
language, but not of thought, occurs in John viii. 52, and which in the present context 
forms a highly appropriate prelude. Does this imply that the editor adapted the verse in 
St. John to his own purposes ? On this point, since we are not prepared to maintain that that 
passage in St. John is essentially unhistorical, we cannot give a decided opinion ; and in 
any case the probable relation of 654 to St. John's Gospel must be considered from the 
point of view of the collection of Sayings as a whole and of the conclusions adopted as to 
the editor's claim, rather than made a starting-point for an investigation of that claim and 
the source of the Sayings. For as we have said (p. 10), the introduction necessarily stands 
on a somewhat different footing from the Sayings, and even if knowledge and use of the 
Canonical Gospels by the author of the introduction was certain, this would not prove 
a corresponding dependence of the Sayings themselves upon the Canonical Gospels. All 
that can at present safely be inferred from the parallelism between the introduction and 
St. John is that the editor of the collection lived in an atmosphere of thought influenced by 
those speculative ideas in early Christianity which found their highest expression in the 
Fourth Gospel. 

What value, if any, is to be attached to this far-reaching claim — that the collection of 
Sayings derives its authority, not from the tradidonal sources of any of the four Canonical 
Gospels, but from St. Thomas and perhaps another disciple ? The custom of invoking the 
authority of a great and familiar name for an anonymous and later work is so common in 
early Christian, as in other, writings, that the mere statement of the editor carries no weight 
by itself, and is not worth considering unless the internal evidence of the Sayings themselves 
can be shown to point in the same direction or at any rate to be not inconsistent with his 
claim. We pass therefore to the problem of the general nature and origin of the Sayings 
in 654 and 1, and as a convenient method of inquiry start from an examination of the 
various theories already put forward in explanation of 1. Not that we wish to hold any of 
our critics to their previous opinions on the subject. The discovery of 654, with the intro- 
duction containing the mention of Thomas and a close parallel to St. John's Gospel, with 
one Saying coinciding with a citation from the Gospel to the Hebrews and another having 
the context prefixed to it, introduces several novel and highly important factors into the 
controversy; and, being convinced of the close connexion between 1 and 654, we consider 
that all questions concerning 1 must be studied de novo. But since most of the chief New 
Testament scholars have expressed their views on 1, and an immense variety of opinion is 
represented, it is not likely that we shall require to go far outside the range of solutions 
which have already been suggested. A convenient bibliography and resum^ of the contro- 
versy will be found in Profs. Lock and Sanday's Two Lectures on the Sayings 0/ Jesus. 

In our original edition of 1 we proposed a.d. 140 as the latest date to which the 
composition of the Sayings could be referred. This terminus ad quern has generally been 


accepted even by Dr. Sanday, who is amongst the most conservative of our critics ; and 
the only notable exception is, so far as we know, Zahn, who would make the Sayings as 
late as 160-70. But his explanation of 1 has met with little favour, and, as we shall show, 
is now rendered still less probable. Accordingly, we should propose a.d. 140 for the 
iermtnus ad quern in reference to 654 with greater confidence than we felt about 1 mi 897. 

The chief dividing line in the controversy lies between those who agreed with our 
suggestion that 1 belonged to a collection of Sayings as such, and those who considered 
1 to be a series of extracts from one or more of the numerous extra-canonical gospels 
which are known to have circulated in Egypt in the second century. Does 654 help 
to decide the question in either direction ? One argument which has been widely used 
in support of the view that 1 was really a series of extracts, viz. that the Sayings had 
no contexts, is somewhat damaged by the appearance of a Saying which has a context. 
But we are not disposed to lay stress on this contradictory instance, which is clearly 
exceptional, though we may be pardoned for deprecating beforehand the use of the 
converse argument that the occurrence of a context proves the Sayings to be extracts. 
This argument may seem to gain some support from the use οϊ αΐτάν (and probably αυτού) 
in 654. ^2 : and it will very likely be pointed out that such a passage as 655. 17-23 would 
by the insertion of 'ir/o-oOs after \iy^L make a context and Saying in form exactly resembhng 
654 λ2 sqq. But the use of αντ6ν causes no ambiguity where it is found in one of a series 
of Sayino-s each beginning λ/γ» Ίτ^σοί^, a formula which itself recurs later on in the same 
context : and the argument from the analogy of 655. 17-23 is open to the obvious retort 
that such a passage may equally well have been transferred from a collection of Saymgs 
with occasional contexts, like 654. The fact is that the formal presence or absence 
of contexts in a series of Sayings can be employed with equal plausibihty to prove or 
disprove the view that the series consisted of extracts, and would therefore seem a very 
unsound argument to introduce into the discussion. The matter of the context of the 
t;th Saying, however, has perhaps a more important bearing than the form upon the 
question of extracts. The phrase Xeyet Ίησοί, there follows two historic presents, φταζονσ.ν 
and λί'νουσ»., and is therefore presumably itself a historic present ; and if Xiyct Ι,σονί 
is a historic present in one case, it should be so throughout 654 and 1^ This context 
therefore confirms the explanation of Xey» Ίησοΐ,^ in 1 suggested by Zahn. Are we to 
follow him in his next inference that the formula λ/γ« Ίησοΐ,, has been taken oyer without 
alteration by the editor from his source, which was therefore presumably a Gospel narrative? 
To this we should answer by a decided negative. As Dr. Lock remarks {Two Lectures, 
η 1 8) 'it is not likely that Xey» should have occurred uniformly in a narrative a cnticism 
which is strengthened by the recurrence in 654 of at least three more instances of Xey« Ιησον^ 
(11 9, 27, and 36), and by the comparison of 654. 32 sqq. and 655. 17-23, which suggests 
that if th; former had been taken directly from a Gospel like that to which the latter belonged, 
Ίησον, would have been omitted. It is, we think, much more probable that the formula λ.γ« 
'CoCi is due to the editor of the collection than to his sources, whatever they were. ^ And 
though there is now no longer any particular reason for interpreting the tense of Xeyet as 
more than a historic present, a secondary meaning is not excluded, and niay be present in 
1. 36 just as much as in the other instances where there is no context. We should be inclined 
to paraphrase λ/γ« Ί^σοϋ. as ' This is one of those Xdyot of Jesus to which I referred m the 
introduction,' and to explain the uniform repetition of it as marking off ^e several Xoyo, 
from each other, and giving greater impressiveness to the whole The f^^^ ^h^tthe editor 
used the aorist and not the historic present in his introduction suggests that by his 
employment of the present tense Xeye^ throughout the Sayings he intended to produce 
a slightly different effect from that which would have been caused by tXey^v or ^<.mv. uut 


this new light shed upon the formula Xeyft 'ΐησον$ does not bring with it any new reason for 
regarding the Sayings as extracts from a narrative Gospel. 

A much more important factor in deciding whether the Sayings are extracts or not is 
the introduction, which though it may be a later addition, and though the reference to 
St. Thomas may be merely a bold invention of the editor, is there, and its presence has 
to be accounted for. So far from stating that the Sayings are extracts from any work, the 
editor asserts that they are a collection of Xoyot, a circumstance which seems to provide an 
adequate explanation not only of the disconnected character of the Sayings in part of 
the collection, but of the repetition of the formula Xe'yei Ίησοΐις before each one. It is now 
clear that 654 was meant by the editor to be regarded as an independent literary work, 
complete in itself; and though it is not necessary to accept it as such, those who wish 
to maintain that the collection is something quite different from what it purports to be must 
be prepared to explain how the introduction comes to be there. Hence we think that 
no theory of the origin of the Sayings as a whole is to be considered satisfactory unless 
it at the same time provides a reasonable explanation of the fact that some one not later 
than the middle of the second century published the Sayings as specially connected 
with St. Thomas (and perhaps another disciple), and that the collection attained suflBicient 
importance for it to be read, and presumably accepted as genuine, in the chief towns of 
Upper Egypt in the century following. This contention, if it be generally acknowledged, 
will be an important criterion in discussing the merits of the different theories. 

We begin therefore with a brief enumeration of the different Gospels to which 1 has 
been referred, premising that all theories in favour of extracts have now to face at the outset 
a difficult, and to some of them, we think, an insurmountable obstacle in the shape of the 
introduction in 654. Of these the most generally accepted is probably that maintained 
with all his usual brilliant powers of analysis by Harnack (^Die jiingst entdeckten Spriiche 
Jesu), that 1 consisted of extracts from the Gospel according to the Egyptians. The 
question was, however, complicated by the extremely divergent views held concerning that 
Gospel, to which only one passage of any length can be assigned with certainty. At 
one extreme stands Harnack's view that this with the Gospel according to the Hebrews was 
the Gospel first used in Egypt, that it was not really heretical, and that it is the source 
of the non-canonical Sayings found in the Second Epistle of Clement. At the other 
extreme is the view of Resch [Agrapha, pp. 316-9), that the Gospel according to the 
Egyptians was not used by the author of the Second Epistle of Clement, and that it 
was thoroughly Gnostic and Encratite, as Origen and Epiphanius declared; the view 
of Zahn {Gesch. d. NT. Kan. ii. pp. 628 sqq.), which seems to us the most reasonable, 
stands midway between, assigning to this Gospel neither the importance given to it by 
Harnack nor the heretical character ascribed to it by Resch, with whom, however, Zahn 
is in accord in considering that it was not used by the author of II Clem. Disagreeing 
as we do with Harnack's view of the Gospel according to the Egyptians, we have never been 
able to regard his explanation of 1 as satisfactory, and the insecurity of his hypothesis 
is illustrated by the attempt of Mr. Badham {Athenaeum, Aug. 7, 1897), from a point of view 
not far from that of Resch, to reach the same conclusion. The evidence of 654 provides 
fresh objections to the theory. There is no direct point of contact between 654 and 
the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and where one of the uncanonical Sayings happens 
to be known, it occurs not in this Gospel but in that according to the Hebrews. There is, 
indeed, more to be said for regarding 654 as extracts from the latter Gospel, as was 
suggested in the case of 1 by Batiffol {Revue Biblique, 1897, p. 515) and Davidson 
{Internal. Journ. of Ethics, Oct. 1897), than from the Gospel according to the Egyptians. 
In their divergence from the Canonical Gospels, the striking character of much of the 


new matter, the Hebraic parallelisms of expression, the Sayings are quite in keeping with 
the style of the most venerable and important of all the uncanonical Gospels, which 
is known to have been written originally in Hebrew, and which is now generally 
regarded as independent of the four Canonical Gospels. To these points of connexion 
has now to be added the far more solid piece of evidence afforded by the ist Saying 
in 654. There remain indeed the objections (cf. Sayings of our Lord, p. 17) that the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews would be expected to show greater resemblance to 
St. Matthew than we find in 1 and 654, which is even further away from St. Matthew's 
Gospel than 1, and secondly that the Johannine colouring traceable in the new Sayings 
is foreign to the extant fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which seems 
to have been quite parallel to the Synoptists. But on the other hand, if Harnack is right 
{Gesch. d. Altchrisi. Lit. ii. pp. 646-8) in supposing that the resemblance of this Gospel 
to St. Luke's was not much less marked than its resemblance to St. Matthew's, the points 
of contact between the Sayings and St. Luke, which are at least as strong as these with 
St. Matthew, constitute no great difficulty. And it is quite possible that the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews had a mystical side which is revealed to us occasionally (as 
e. g. in the curious passage in which Jesus speaks of his ' mother, the Holy Ghost,' and in 
the Saying found also in 654), but which owing to the paucity of references has hitherto 
been underestimated. A far graver and in fact almost fatal objection, however, to regarding 
the Sayings as extracts culled from either the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the 
Gospel according to the Egyptians is the irreconcilability of such a view with the introduc- 
tion of 654. It is very difiicult to believe that an editor would have had the boldness to 
issue extracts from such widely known works as an independent collection of Sayings 
claiming the authority of Thomas and perhaps another disciple. Even if we supply 
ΜατθαΙω at the end of 654. 2 and suppose that the mention of Thomas is of quite 
secondary importance, it is very hard to supply a reasonable motive for issuing a series 
of extracts from the Gospel according to the Hebrews with such a preface as Λve find 
in 654, and to account for the popularity of these supposed extracts in the century 
following their publication. We are therefore on the whole opposed to the view, 
attractive though it undoubtedly is, that the Sayings are all directly derived from the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews. But that there is a connexion between them is certain, 
and it is significant that the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, in which work Mayor 
{ap. Rendel Harris, Contemp. Rev. 1897, pp. 344-5) has with much probability detected 
references to the 2nd Logion (cf. the parallels adduced on p. 7), are also the source 
of the quotation from the Gospel according to the Hebrews which is closely parallel to the 
I St Saying. It is not at all unlikely that the 2nd Logion (' Except ye fast ') also presented 
a strong similarity to a passage in the same Gospel. 

The obstacle which prevents us from accepting the Gospel according to the Hebrews 
as the source of all the Sayings, in spite of the evidence in favour of such a view, applies 
Λvith equal force to Zahn's hypothesis that they were derived from the Gospel of the 
Ebionites or Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, which is open to grave objections on other 
grounds. The instances adduced by Zahn to show the use of collections of extracts 
in the second century, (i) a series of e/cXoyai from the Old Testament composed by Melito 
of Sardis, and (2) a list of heretical passages from the Gospel of Peter appended to a letter 
by Serapion, were singularly inapt even as regards 1 (cf. Sanday, Two Lectures, p. 45, 
note), and still less bear any relation to 654. Even admitting for the sake of argument 
Zahn's theory of the relation of the Gospel of the Ebionites to the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews (on which Harnack throws doubts, op. cit. ii. p. 626), and his proposed date for 
1, about A.D. 170 (which has generally been regarded as too late), and for the Gospel 


of the Ebionites (which if we follow Harnack, op. cit. ii. p. 631, is too early), the character 
of the extant fragments of this thoroughly Gnostic Jewish-Christian Gospel is very different 
from that of 1 and 654, to say nothing of the other arguments against Zahn's theory 
brought by Dr. Sanday in Two Lectures, p. 46. 

The views which we have discussed so far have, whether satisfactory or not on other 
grounds, all been confronted by the initial difficulty of the introduction. Let us now 
examine those Gospels ascribed to disciples whose names either occur or may with reasonable 
probability be supposed to have occurred in 11. 2-3. It is obvious that the introduction 
would suit a series of extracts from e. g. the Gospel of Thomas much better than one 
from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The Gospel of Thomas is known to have 
existed in more than one form, namely as an account of Jesus' childhood which is extant 
in several late recensions of varying length, and as an earlier Gospel condemned by 

HippolytUS in the following passage {Refut. v. 7) ov μόνον δ' αντων (πιμαρτνρΰν φασ\ (sc. the 
Naassenes) τω \όγω τά Άσσνρίωρ μυστήρια αΚ\α και Φρνγών ττερί την των •γ(-γονότων και γινομίνων 
και ίσομίνων ίτι μακαρίαν κρυβομίνην όμοΰ καϊ φανΐρουμ^νην φνσιν ηνπ€ρ φησ\ την evros άνθρωπου 
/3ασιλίία>/ ουρανών ζητονμίνην, ττερί tjs διαρρή8ην ίν τω κατά θωμάν €πιγραφομ€νω (ναγγΐΧίω 
παρα8ώόασι Xeyovres ούτως' €μέ 6 ζητών eiprjafi ίν παώίοις άπο €τών €7Γτά' €Κ€Ϊ yap iv τω 

τίνσαρ(σκαώ(κάτω αΐωνι κρνβόμΐροί φανίροΰμαι. Here we have two remarkable points of 
contact with 654, the mention of Thomas coupled with the ivTos ανθρώπου βασιλεία 
(cf. the 2nd Saying). 

The parallels between 1 and one of the later forms of the Thomas Gospel have been 
worked out with great ingenuity and elaboration by Dr. Taylor on pp. 90—8 of T^ 
Oxyrhynchus Logia and the Apocryphal Gospels. There is much to be said for his vicAV 
that the extant Gospel of Thomas contains some traces of 1, and the probability would 
be increased if 1, which Dr. Taylor was inclined to regard as extracts from the Gospel 
according to the Egyptians, be supposed to be derived from the earlier Gospel of Thomas. 
654 does not seem to contain any clear points of connexion with the later Gospel of 
Thomas, but this is compensated for by the remarkable parallel from Hippolytus quoted 
above. It is moreover noteworthy, as Mr. Badham remarks, that the Acts of Thomas, which 
may well have been partly built upon the Gospel, exhibit a knowledge of that Saying which 
occurs both in the Gospel according to the Hebrews and in 654, and that, as Prof. Lake 
informs us, an Athos MS. [Studia Bihlica, v. 2, p. 173) asserts that the π(ρικο•πή of Christ 
and the woman taken in adultery (which has found its way from the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews into St. John's Gospel) occurred in the Gospel of Thomas. But there 
are serious objections to regarding 1 and 654 as extracts from that Gospel. In the 
first place though it is possible that Thomas is the only disciple mentioned in the 
introduction, it is equally possible that he stood second, and in that case the Gospel 
from which the Sayings may have been extracted is more likely to have been one 
which went under the name of the person who stood first ; though indeed, if there were 
two disciples mentioned in the introduction, it is not very satisfactory to derive the Sayings 
from any Gospel which went under the name of only one. A much greater difficulty 
arises from the divergence of the Sayings from what little is known about the earlier 
Gospel of Thomas. The saying quoted by Hippolytus is widely removed in character 
from those in 1 and 654, and it is significant that, though the doctrine of aeons 
seems to be known to the author of the Gospel of Thomas, 654 employs in 1. 24 
the neutral word τόπος in a passage in which αίώ!/, as is shown by the parallel from the 
Apocalypse of Peter, would have been highly appropriate, if the composer of the Sayings 
had known of or been influenced by that doctrine. The Gospel of Thomas, which 
Harnack thinks was known to Irenaeus, is indeed placed before a. d. 180, but from 



tibe qnotatkn in Hq^f^jtns» coapled iridi the : 
scanl^ evidence finam odier sooicesy it has bee 
rate a Gospd of the diOdiood and <rf^ an ac 
are to be derived firom it, the cnnent view c: 
dai^ed; and it is veiy doobtM wfaeifaer tL 
t-nnske-nre^ of an o(^;inal Thomas Gospd bdi:: 
would lead as into a r^^ ^ pore conjecr 
at anj rale nntil odio' less hazudons roads 
a connexion between the eaifier Goqiel ci Τ 
bat this can be btfter e^pbined bj soppoan^ 
than bj the l^podiests that the Go^d b the sc 
liie Gospel ctf FUlp, vfaidi is ass^^ 
centmy, by Haniack to the secraid centmy c 
were certain that Φιλάτη occniied in β54>. 2. 
The extract qooted fimn it by Ei^phsuiiiis stc 
Gnostic toidencies than can be ftmnd in i. and 
The Mity other Apociyphal Gospds whi: 
works c(»nected wtfh Matthias, d wUdi dier 
a few extracts firom whidi are dted by Clan 
to MaHhias moitioned by Origoi, and (3) 
Basilidians which are thus described by^ Η 
nu *I«flfaMi«i ... φασατ ορψάβΛ ΙΛοβΜλτ onrrotr λ. 
nr* aKar ^Λ^χΘόχ. The natore of these thre 
are verr uncertain. Zahn considers all thre 
(ιψ. cu/l p. 18) was disposed to accept the i 
S- P• 597) rewrts to the Tiew that tlese two 
that the npmSoims of Matthias might be the 
{Comiemp. Rev. Aug. 1897), only to be ir 
dissimilarity of form between 1 and the extar. 
to ha^e been a woik of a mainly honuktic c: 
exdnded from the likdy sources of the Savi 
an extract from them, Ai^f•»»' ™ «'V*'™» side ; 
according to the Hebrews which is parallel tc 
to Matthias practically nothing is known exc; 
source (^ the Sayings is therefore incapa' f 
conjecture has nothing to oppose to t;.T 
Sayings are something quite different i::: 
the Xoyoc άκΌκρηφοι m^ticmed by Hippol} 

od in hter times and the 

lave been mainly at any 

:.-2cter. If the Sayii^ 

Τ :~:is must be eotirely 

f- ^- postnbling the 

: -' :pobrtn& This 

Γ ""~r to enter. 

Ϊ ;.: there is 

- .:^f r : : ;7;• ' ' likely, 

r ~ : Γ Gospel 



rn if it 


ck, who at fiist 

cquently {o^dL 

The ^oggesticm 

_ 5 η oat by Dr. James 

r ground oi the 

- ^ ; V - - - which seem 

7 - - - -altogether 

r C ement quotes 

e . r ". :rom the Gospd 

- f^ _ el accordmg 

it it is the 

, - -sed on pure 

eien. ;r. r: λ:: : , . i6) that the 

λ: they profess to be. There ranain 

>e occurrence of the vrord Xiyoi suggests 

a connexion with the Sayings, but this cannot easily be earned much ftirther. The λαγό. 
άτών«φο» were, according to Hippolytus, reirealed to Matthias «ir* ίίία,, wber^ if Matthias 
occurred at aU in the introduction, it was m conjunction with Thomas. The particular 
Gnostic ontok«ical speculations which according to Hippolytus were found m these λο^ο. 
awaunMbot bdong to another plane of thought from that found in the baymgs ; but the 
question is compUcated by the confused and untrustworthy character of Hippolytus 
discussion of the BasiBdians, vii. 20 being among the most suspiaous passages. And ewn 
if there were a connexion between these Xay« άτόβρυφο» of Matthias and the bajnngs, 
this would bring us no nearer to a proof that the Sayings were extracts from a narrative 
Gospd rather than a coUection of Sayings as such. There is moreover another objecuon 
to connecting the Sayings with any work profiessedly under the name of Matthias, because 

C 2 


such a view would necessarily entail the supposition that the Sayings are post-resurrec- 
tional ; and this for the reasons given on pp. 1 2-3 we do not think justifiable. 

Our conclusion, therefore, is that no one of the known uncanonical Gospels is 
a suitable source for the Sayings as a whole. Shall we regard them as a series of extracts 
from several of these Gospels, as was suggested with respect to 1 by Dr. James ? So long 
as the discussion was confined to 1, such an explanation from its vagueness was almost 
beyond the reach of criticism. The recovery of 654 alters the situation. On the one 
hand the occurrence of a Saying, which is known to have been also found in the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews, side by side with other Sayings which it is difficult to ascribe 
to the same source, rather favours the theory of an eclectic series derived from different 
Gospels. But the introduction connecting the Sayings with particular disciples is not 
very suitable for such a collection which ex hypoihesi is of an altogether miscellaneous 
character ; and it would be difficult for any one to maintain that the Sayings are derived 
from several Apocryphal Gospels and at the same time in face of the mention of Thomas 
to deny that one of the chief elements was the Gospel of Thomas. But the inclusion 
of the Gospel of Thomas among the sources of the Sayings to a large extent involves 
the hypothesis of extracts from several Gospels in the difficulties which are discussed 
on pp. 18-9. 

The result of an examination in the light of 654 of the various theories that the 
immediate source of 1 was one or more of the known non-canonical Gospels confirms 
us in the view that the solution does not lie in that direction, and that the Sayings 
are much more likely to be a source utiUzed in one or more of the uncanonical Gospels, 
than vice versa. The probability of the general explanation of 1 which we suggested in 
1897 and which has been supported, amongst others, by Drs. Swete, Rendel Harris, Sanday, 
Lock, and Heinrici, that it was part of a collection of Sayings as such, is largely increased 
by the discovery of 654, with its introduction to the whole collection stating that it 
was a collection of Xoyoi, which was obviously intended to stand as an independent literary 
work. In fact we doubt if theories of extracts are any longer justifiable; and in any 
case such explanations will henceforth be placed at the initial disadvantage of starting 
with an assumption which is distinctly contradicted by the introduction of 654. It is 
of course possible to explain away this introduction, but unless very strong reasons can 
be adduced for doing so, the simpler and far safer course is to accept the editor's statement 
that 654, to which, as we have said, 1 is closely allied, is a collection of \oyoi Ίησοΰ. 

The opinions of those critics who agreed with our general explanation of 1 as against 
the various theories of extracts may be divided into two classes: (i) those who regarded 
1 as a collection of Sayings independent of the Gospels and belonging to the first century, 
and who therefore were disposed to admit to a greater or less extent and with much 
varying degrees of confidence the presence of genuine elements in the new matter 
(Drs. Swete, Rendel Harris, Lock, and Heinrici) ; (2) those who, like Dr. Sanday, regarded 
the new Sayings in 1 as the product of the early second century, not direcdy dependent 
on the Canonical Gospels, but having ' their origin under conditions of thought which 
these Gospels had created' (Sanday, op. cit. p. 41), a view which necessarily carries with it 
the rejection of the new matter. It remains to ask how far 654 helps to decide the points 
at issue in favour of either side. 

With regard to the relation of 654 to the Canonical Gospels, the proportion of new 
and old matter is about the same as in 1, and the parallels to the Canonical Gospels 
in 654 exhibit the same freedom of treatment, which can be explained either as implying 
independence of the Canonical Gospels, or as the liberties taken by an early redactor. 
The introduction in 654 contains a clearer parallel to St. John's Gospel than anything 


to be found in 1 ; but even if it be conceded (and there is good reason for not con- 
ceding it; cf. p. 11) that the introduction implied a knowledge of St. John's Gospel, 
and was therefore probably composed in the second century, the Sayings themselves 
can (and, as we shall show, do) contain at any rate some elements which are not derived 
from the Canonical Gospels, and go back to the first century. So far as the evidence of 
654 goes, there is nothing to cause any one to renounce opinions which he may have formed 
concerning the relation of 1 to the Canonical Gospels. No one who feels certain on 
this point with regard to the one, is likely to be convinced of the incorrectness of his 
view by the other. 

Secondly, with regard to the new matter in 654, the uncertainties attaching to the 
restoration and meaning of most of the 2nd, the earlier part of the 3rd, and all the 
5th Saying, unfortunately prevent them from being of much use for purposes of critical 
analysis. Unless by the aid of new parallels the satisfactory restoration of these three 
Sayings can be carried beyond the point which we have been able to reach, their 
remains hardly provide a firm basis for estimating their individual value, still less that 
of the collection as a whole, each Saying of which has a right to consideration on its 
own merits. Only with regard to the ist Saying are we on sure ground. Concerning 
this striking Agraphon the most diverse opinions have been held. Resch, a usually 
indulgent critic of the uncanonical Sayings ascribed to our Lord, rejects it as spurious; 
Ropes on the other hand, though far more exacting, is inclined to accept it as genuine, 
but on account of the absence of widely attested authority for it does not put it in his 
highest class of genuine Sayings which includes ' It is more blessed to give than to receive.' 
The judgement of Ropes upon Agrapha has generally been regarded as far sounder 
than that of Resch ; and much of Resch's unfavourable criticism of this Saying is beside 
the mark (Harnack now regards it as primary ; cf. p. 5), while the occurrence of the Saying 
in 654 is a new argument for its authority. But whatever view be taken of its authenticity, 
and however the connexion between 654 and the Gospel according to the Hebrews is 
to be explained, the ist Saying in 654 establishes one important fact. Dr. Sanday may be 
right in regarding a.d. 100 as the terminus a quo for the composition of 1, and the 
same terminus a quo can of course be assigned to 654 in the sense that the Sayings were 
not put together and the introduction not written before that date. But, if we may accept 
the agreement of the leading theologians that the Gospel of the Hebrews Avas written in 
the first century, it is impossible any longer to deny that 654 and therefore, as we maintain, 
1, contain some non-canonical elements which directly or indirectly go back to the first 
century ; and the existence of first century elements in one case certainly increases the 
probability of their presence in others. In this respect, therefore, 654 provides a remark- 
able confirmation of the views of those critics who were prepared to allow a first century 
date for 1. 

Are we then, adapting to 654 Dr. Sanday's view of 1 with the fewest possible modifi- 
cations, to regard the whole collection as a free compilation in the early part of the second 
century, by an Alexandrian Jewish-Christian, of Sayings ultimately derived from the 
Canonical Gospels, and very likely the Gospels according to the Hebrews and Thomas, 
and perhaps others as well ; and shall we dismiss the new elements, except the ist Saying in 
654, as the spurious accretions of an age of philosophic speculation, and surroundings 
of dubious orthodoxy ? Even so the two papyri are of great interest as revealing a 
hitherto unknown development of primitive belief upon the nature of Christ's teaching, and 
supplying new and valuable evidence for determining the relationship of the uncanonical 
Gospels to the main current of orthodox Christianity. Or are we rather to consider 1 
and 654 to be fragments of an early collection of our Lord's Sayings in a form which has 


been influenced to some extent by the thought and literature of the apostolic and post- 
apostolic age, and which may well itself have influenced the Gospel of Thomas and perhaps 
others of the heretical Gospels, but which is ultimately connected in a large measure with 
a first-hand source other than that of any of the Canonical Gospels ? Some such view has 
been maintained by scholars of eminence, e.g. Heinrici and Rendel Harris, Avith regard to 1; 
and if the claim made by the editor of the collection in his introduction, that his source was 
St. Thomas and perhaps another disciple, amounts to but little more, the internal evidence of 
654 provides no obvious reason why we should concede him much less; while the occurrence 
of one uncanonical Saying, which is already known to be of extreme antiquity and 
has been accepted as substantially genuine by several critics, lends considerable support to 
the others which rest on the evidence of 654 and 1 alone. 

That is as far as we are prepared to go ; for a really weighty and perfectly unbiassed 
estimate of the ultimate value of any new discovery, resort must be made to some other 
quarter than the discoverers. We conclude by pointing out that, if the view with regard 
to 1 and 654 which we have just indicated is on the right lines, the analogy of this 
collection has an obvious bearing on the question of the sources of the S}Tioptic Gospels, 
and that the mystical and speculative element in the early records of Christ's Sayings which 
found its highest and most widely accepted expression in St. John's Gospel^ may well have 
been much more general and less peculiarly Johannine than has hitherto been taken 
for granted. 

655. Fragment of a Lost Gospel. 

Fr. {b) 8-2 X 8-3 cm. Plate II. 

Eight fragments of a papyrus in roll form containing an uncanonical Gospel, 
the largest {b) comprising parts of the middles of two narrow^ columns. None 
of the other fragments actually joins {b), but it is practically certain that the 
relation to it of Frs. [a) and {c), which come from the tops of columns, is as 
indicated in the Plate. Frs. {d) and {e), both of which have a margin below the 
writing, probably belong to the bottom of the same two columns which are 
partly preserved in {b) ; but how much is lost in the interval is uncertain. Since 
the upper portion of Col. i admits of a sure restoration of the majority of the 
lacunae, the first 23 lines are nearly complete ; but the remains of the second 
column are for the most part too slight for the sense to be recovered. The 
handwriting is a small uncial of the common sloping oval type, which in most 
cases belongs to the third century, among securely dated examples being 23 
(P. Oxy. I. Plate vi), 223 (P. Oxy. II. Plate i), 420 (P. Oxy. III. Plate vi), 
P. Amh. II. 12 (Plate iii). But this kind of hand is found in the second century, 
e. g. 26 (P. Oxy. I. Plate vii), 447 (P. Oxy. III. Plate vi), and continued in the 
fourth ; for late third or fourth century examples see P. Amh. I. 3 {b) (Part II. 
Plate xxv) and 404 (P. Oxy. III. Plate iv). 655 is a well-written specimen, 



suggesting, on the whole, the earlier rather than the later period during which 
this hand was in vogue, and though we should not assign it to the second century, 
it is not likely to have been written later than A.D. 250. Lines 1-16 νμ5>ν give 
the conclusion of a speech of Jesus which is parallel to several sentences in the 
Sermon on the Mount. Then follows (11. 17-23) an account of a question put to 
Him by the disciples and of the answer. This, the most important part of the 
papyrus, is new, but bears an interesting resemblance to a known quotation from 
the Gospel according to the Egyptians ; cf. note ad loc. A passage in Col ii 
seems to be parallel to Luke xi. 53. On the general questions concerning the 
nature and origin of the Gospel to which the fragment belonged see pp. 27-8. 
In 11. 7-1 1 of the text the division between Frs. (λ) and {b) is indicated by double 
vertical lines ||. No stops, breathings, or accents are used, but a wedge-shaped 
sign for filling up short lines occurs in 1. 27 and a correction in a cursive hand in 
1. 25. An interchange of et and ?; causes the form αλικιαν in 1. 14, and 1. 13 
requires some correction. 

The key to the general restoration of 11. 1-3 was supplied by Mr. Badham, 

that to 11. 41-6 by Dr. Bartlet. 

Col. i. 

{a) [. . .]rro πρωι 6[ 

[. . . .]€ ΑΦ ecn[ 

[. . . .]ρωι ΜΗτε [. . . 

[ ]ΜωΝ τι ΦΑ[ 

5 [ ] ΤΗ CT[. 

[ ] τι €ΝΔΥ[. 

{b) [. .]€Θ€||[. . .μω KPej[. 
[. . .]ec . |ΐ[. . .] τωΝ [. 

ΝωΝ ΑΤΙ|1[. . .]ΥΞΑ[. 
ΙΟ NGI 0ΥΔ6 Ν||[. .]€] . [. 
€Ν €ΧΟΝΤ||[. . .]ΝΔ[. 
ΜΑ Tj €Ν[. . . .] ΚΑΙ 

επι ΤΗΝ eiAiKiAN 

15 ΥΜωΝ ΑΥΤΟ[. .]ωθ€Ι 

ποτε ΗΜείΝ εΜΦΑ 
2ο NHC εεει και ποτε 
εε οτοΜεοΑ Αεπει 

Col. ϋ. 

{c) Θ 

3θ Λε[ 





35 Ν . [ 





40 [ 

{b) εΑ[ 

THC [ 



45 εΐ€ερ[ 


Δε Γεΐ[ 





ΟΤΑΝ eKAYCHcee και 


50 PA[ 









]K. [ 


{h) . 


[. . ajTTo irpcoi €[ω9 oye 
[μήτ]ζ. αφ' ian[epas 
[ΐωί 7Γ]ρωΙ μήτ€ [rfj 
[τροφίϊ ν]μων τι φά- 

5 [γν"^ Ι^ντ^] TV ο•τ[ο- 
[Xfj υμών] τι ίνδύ- 
[ση]σθξ. [7Γθλ]λω κρύ[σ- 
[σον\ίί [Ιστβ] των [κρί- 
νων ατί[να α]νζά- 
10 vei ovSe ν[ήθ]ίΐ . [. 
€v €)(^ovT\^es 'ί]νδ[ν- 
μα τι iv[. . . .] και 

νμ€Ϊ9 ; Τί'ί αν ΐΓροσθ{^ι)η 
kirl την ήλικίαν 

15 νμων ; αύτο[9 8]ώσ€ΐ 
ύμΐν το 'ίνδνμα υ- 
μών, λξγονσιν αύ- 
τω οι μαθηται αύτοϋ' 
πότ€ ημΐν €μφα- 

2θ vr]S €σ€ΐ και πότ€ 
σ€ όψόμβθα ; Xeyci* 
δταν ΐκβνσ-ησθζ και 
μ^ αίσχννθήτ€, 

41 eX[€ye• τ^ι^ κλ^ΐδα 
της [γνώσίως k- 
κρνψ[ατ€' αύτοΙ ουκ 
ΐΐσήλ[θατ€, και τοΐ? 

45 €ίσ€ρ[χομ€νοι? ου- 
κ άν[€ωξατ€ .... 



1-23. '(Take no thought) from morning until even nor from evening until morning, 
either for your food what ye shall eat or for your raiment what ye shall put on. Ye are far 
better than the lilies which grow but spin not. Having one garment, what do ye (lack ?) 
. . . Who could add to your stature ? He himself will give you your garment. His 
disciples say unto him, When wilt thou be manifest to us, and when shall we see thee ? 
He saith. When ye shall be stripped and not be ashamed . . . ' 

41-6. '. . . He said. The key of knowledge ye hid; ye entered not in yourselves and 
to them that were entering in ye opened not.' 

1-7. Cf. Matt. vi. 25 /ii7 μ(ριμνατ€ τη ψνχβ υμών τι φάγητΐ μη8€ τω σώματι υμών τι ίρΒύσησθί. 
ονχ\ ή ψυχή πλΰόν ίστι της τροφή! καϊ το σώμα τοΰ €ρ8ΰματος•,, Luke χϋ. 22-3 μη μ(ριμνατζ Tjj 
ψυχίΙ τι φάγητ€ μη8β τω σώματι τΊ (ν8ύσησθ(, ή yap ψυχή πλύόν εστίν της τροφής κα\ το σώμα τοΰ 

ίνδύματος. The papyrus probably had μη μΐριμνατΐ at the beginning of the sentence but 
differs (i) by the addition of από πρω\ . . . εω? πρωί, (2) by the use of a different word for σώμα 
and probably for ψυχή, though it is possible that τω σώματι or τη ψυχή preceded από πρωί in 
}. I, (3) by the omission of the second half of the Saying as recorded in the Gospels. In 
11. 1-2 there is not room for 6[σπ€|ραΓ μητ]ε. στ[ο\η in 11. 5-6 is not quite the word that 
would be expected, being used in the New Testament for grand ' robes ' rather than a plain 
garment, but if the division τη στ[ is correct στολή cannot be avoided, and with the reading 
της t[ it is difficult to find any suitable word ; cf. also e. g. 839 ήλθε μοι γυμνός . . . ηγόρασα 

αυτώι στοΚην. 

7—13• Cf. Matt. vi. 28 και nep\ ΐνΒύματος τι μίριμνάτΐ ; καταμάθΐτΐ τα κρίνα τοΰ άγροΰ πώς 
αυζάνουσιν' ου κοπιώσιν oi8e νηθουσιν λί'γω be υμΐν οτι oibe Σολομών iv πάση τη δόξη αύτοΰ πΐρΐ€- 
βαλετο ως If τούτων, Luke χϋ. 2 7 κατανοήσατε τα. κρίνα πώς αυξάνει' ου κοπιά ουδέ νηθει' λέγω δ« 
νμϊν ουδέ κ.τ.λ, and Matt. vi. 26 ούχ υμεΐς μάλλον διαφέρετε αυτών (sc. τών πετεινών) ; Luke χϋ. 24 

πόσω μάλλον υμεΐς διαφέρετε τών πετεινών. The corresponding passage in the papyrus is not 
only much shorter, but varies considerably, though to what extent is not quite clear owing 
to the uncertainty attaching to the restoration of 11. 10-2. Our reasons for placing Fr. {a) 
in the particular relation to Fr. (δ) indicated on Plate II are the facts (i) that Fr. (a) is from 
the top of a column Λvhich is presumably, judging by the general appearance and lacunae 
in Fr. (a), Col. i of Fr. (ύ) ; (2) that though there is nothing in the external appearance of 
Fr. {a) to show that it contains any actual ends of lines, the connexion of 11. 8-9 and 9-10 
which results from our proposed combination of the two fragments, τών [κρί\νων and α]υξά\νει, 
is so suitable to the context that it is unlikely to be fortuitous. The connexion of 11. lo-i 
and 1 1-2 is, however, more difficult. With the readings and punctuation which we have 
adopted εν in 1. 12 suggests nothing but e^Seire], which does not suit W, and there are many 
points of uncertainty. At the end of 1. 10 the letter before I is more like Γ, C, or Τ than 
e, so that ουδέ ν[ηθ'^^ι (cf. Luke xii. 27) is not very satisfactory. MATION can be read in 1. 12, 
and would in the context be expected to be the termination of a word meaning ' garment' ; 
but with the reading [ιΐ^άτιον it is hard to explain the vestiges of the two letters on 1. 1 1 of 
Fr. (β), which suit respectively a straight letter such as H, I, Μ or Ν and Δ or, less probably, 
A or Λ. ενδυμάτιον, a rare word not found in the N. T., but not inappropriate here, is 

possible ; but Iv εχονΊ[ες ε]νδ[υ''^τιόν [εστε] is Unlikely. It is also possible to connect κα\ ίμεΐς 

with τις instead of with the preceding WOrds, but this does not help towards making the 
restoration of 11. 10-2 easier. These difficulties could be avoided by supposing that Fr. {a) is 
to be placed much higher up in relation to Fr. {δ), but this involves the sacrifice of any 
direct connexion between Frs. (a) and (δ), and 11. 8-9 and 9-10 afford very strong grounds 
for our proposed combination of the two fragments. 

13—5• Cf. Matt. vi. 27 τις δε εξ υμών μερίμνων δύναται προσθεΐναι επ\ την ηΧικίαν αυτοΰ ιτηχυν 


eva• and Luke xii. 25 ris de e'l νμων μΐριμνων δύναται em την ηλικίαν αίιτοΰ ττροσθίΐναι πηχνν ', 

The papyrus version is somewhat shorter, omitting μςριμνων and πηχνν. The position in 
which this Saying is found in the papyrus is also slightly different from that in the Gospels, 
where it immediately precedes instead of following the verse about the κρίνα. In 1. 1 3 προσ- 
β(ΐ{η) could be read in place of προσβ{(ΐ)η : there does not seem to be room for προσθΗ[η]. 

15-6. Cf. Matt. vi. 31—3 μη ουν μ^ριμνησητ^ Xeyovres τι φάγωμΐν η τι πίωμ^ν η τί π€ρι- 
βαλώμίθα . . . oldev γαρ δ πατήρ υμών ό ουράνιος οτι χρ^ζ(Τ6 τούτων απάντων. ζητΐϊτΐ he πρώτον την 
βaσιλeίav και την δικαιοσύνην αυτοΰ κα\ ταντα πάντα πpoστeθησeτaι υμίν, and Luke χϋ, 29-31? which 
is nearly identical and proceeds 7^17 φοβοΰ τ6 μικρόν ποίμνιον δη evbόκησev 6 πατήρ υμών δούναι 

νμίν την βασιλ€ίαν. The papyrus has the corresponding idea but expressed with extreme 
conciseness. avT6[s δ]ώσeι, unless δώσίΐ is an error for δώσω, raises a difficulty, for we should 
expect ό πατήρ or ό Seas. Apparently αυτό: refers back to πατήρ or eeos in the column pre- 
ceding, or the author of the Gospel may have here incorporated from some source a Saying 
without its context which would have explained αυτός (cf. 654. 32). 

17-23. For the question cf. John Xiv. 19 sqq. «rt μικρόν καΐ ό κόσμος μι olKeTi θeωpeΐ• υμeΐs 
be θεωρ(Ίτ€ pe' οτι ey<u ζω καΐ ΰ /xeiy ζήσετε .... Xey« αϋτώ Ιούδας . . . κύριε, τί yeyovev οτι ημϊν μέλλεις 
ίμφανίζειν σεαυτον και ούχϊ τω κόσμω ; άπεκρίθη . . . εάν τις άγαπα pe τον λόγον μου τηρήσει καϊ 6 
πατήρ μου αγαπήσει αυτόν, καΐ προς αυτόν εΚευσόμεθα. The answer ascribed in the papyrUS tO 

Jesus bears a striking resemblance to the answer made to a similar question in a passage of 
the Gospel according to the Egyptians which is referred to several times by Clement of 
Alexandria, and which is reconstructed by Harnack {Chronol. i. p. 13) thus: — τ^ Έάλώμη 

πννθανομεντ] μέχρι πότε θάνατος ισχύσει είπεν 6 κύριος' μέχρις αν νμε7ς αί γυναίκες τίκτετε, ηλθον γαρ 
καταλΰσαι τα έργα της βηλείας. καΐ ή Σαλώμη εφη αυτ^' καλώς ουν επο'ιησα μη τεκονσα ; ό δε κύριος 
ημείψατο λέγων πάσαν φάγε βοτάνην, την δε πικρ'ιαν εχουσαν μη φάγης. πυνθανομενης δε της Σαλώμης 
πότε γνωσθησεται τα περ\ οιν ήρετο εφη 6 κύριος' όταν ουν το της αισχύνης ένδυμα πατησητε και όταν 
γενηται τα δύο εν, κα\ το άρρεν μετά της θηλείας οϋτε άρρεν οϋτε βηλυ. Cf. II Clem. 12. 2 
επερωτηθείς γαρ αυτός ό κύριος υπό τίνος πότε ηξει αυτοΰ η βασιλεία ειπεν' όταν εσται τα δυο εν, κα\ το 
εξω ως το εσω, και το αρσεν μετά της θηλείας οϋτε αρσεν οϋτε θήλυ. Both όταν εκδυσησθε και μη 

αίσχυνθητε and δταν το της αισχύνης ένδυμα πατησητε express the Same idea, a mystical reference 
to Gen. iii. 7, 'And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and they were not 
ashamed,' the meaning in either case being that Christ's kingdom on earth would not be 
manifested until man had returned to the state of innocence which existed before the Fall, 
and in which sexual ideas and relations had no place. The chief differences between 
the two passages are (i) the setting, the questioner being in the Gospel according to 
the Egyptians Salome, and in the papyrus the disciples, (2) the simpler language of the 
papyrus as contrasted with the more literary and elaborated phrase τό της αισχύνης ένδυμα 
πατησητε, (3) the absence in the papyrus of the Encratite tendency found in the earlier part 
of the quotation from the Gospel according to the Egyptians. On the relation between 
the two see p. 27. Whether the papyrus continued after αίσχυνθητε with something 
like κα\ όταν γενηται τα δύο εν, κ.τ.λ., is of course uncertain, but Fr. {d), which probably 
belongs to the bottom of this column, is concerned with something different. 

25. φ]ωτεινω: the Corrector's spelling φωτεινός is commoner than φωτινός. Perhaps 
this passage was parallel to Matt. vi. 22-3 (Sermon on the Mount) εάν rj 6 οφθαλμός σου 

άπλοΰς, δλον τό σώμα σον φωτεινον εσται, κ.τ.λ. ; cf. Luke xi. 34-6. But the papyruS muSt 

in any case have differed largely in its language, and κ]όσμω{}) in 1. 26 suggests a Johannine 

30. The Λ of Λ€[ projects somewhat, but since the whole column trends to the 
left, probably no importance is to be attached to the circumstance; cf. the initial δ in 1. 47. 

42-6. With the remains of these lines Bartlet well compares Luke xi. 52 oiai 


νμΐ,ν τοις νομικοϊς οτι ηρατ€ (D and SOme MSS. €κρίψατ() την κλίίδα (D κλεΐι/) της γνώσ€ως' 
αΐιτοί (Τ) and some MSS. καί avrotj οίικ ίΙσηΚθατ€ καΐ τους είσ^ρχομένονς (D (Ισπυρΐυομίνους) 

έκωΚΰσατΐ, οη Avhich our restorations are based. If they are in the right direction, the 
papyrus agreed with D in having (κρνψατ€ in place of ήρατΐ, but with the other uncials 
against D in having a participle of elaepxeaOai not of (Ισπορίίχσθαι, while D's reading 
Koi αυτοί is too long for 1. 43. But the papyrus certainly differed from all the MSS. 
in 1. 46 and probably in 1. 42, where της γνώσ€α>ς e makes a line of only 11 letters, which is 
a little too short, so that perhaps either a different word from γνώσίως {ά\ηθ(ίας ?) or 
a compound of €κρνψατ€ is to be supplied. 

51. Below K0[ is what seems to be an accidental spot of ink rather than part of 
a letter. 

655 seems to belong to a Gospel which was closely similar in point of form to the 
Synoptists. The narrator speaks in the third person, not in the first, and the portion preserved 
consists mainly of discourses which are to a large extent parallel to passages in Matthew 
and Luke, especially the latter Gospel, which alone seems to be connected with 11. 41 sqq. 
The papyrus version is, as a rule, shorter than the corresponding passages in the Gospels ; 
where it is longer (11. 1-3) the expansion does not alter the meaning in any Avay. The 
chief interest lies in the question of the disciples and its answer, both of which so closely 
correspond to a passage in the Gospel according to the Egyptians and the uncanonical 
Gospel or collection of Sayings used by the author of the Second Epistle of Clement, that 
the Gospel of which 655 is a fragment clearly belongs to the same sphere of thought. 
Does it actually belong to either of those works, which, though Harnack regards them 
as one and the same, are, we think, more probably to be considered distinct? In the 
Gospel according to the Egyptians Salome was the questioner who occasioned the 
remarkable Saying beginning δταν τό της αισχύνης erSv/xa πατησητΐ, and it is much more 
likely that 655 presents a different version of the same incident in another Gospel, than 
a repetition of the Salome question in a slightly different form in another part of the 
Gospel according to the Egyptians. Nor is 655 likely to be the actual Gospel Avhich 
the author of II Clem, was quoting. It is unfortunate that owing to the papyrus breaking 
off at αίσχννθητ^ there is no security that όταν yemjTai τα δύο ev, or at any rate something very 
similar, did not follow, and the omission in the Clement passage of a phrase corresponding 
to 11. 22-3 may be a mere accident. But the fact that the question in II Clem, is worded 
somewhat differently (πότε ηξει ή βασιλΐία), and is put into the mouth of tis instead of 
the disciples, as in 655, is a good reason for rejecting the hypothesis that the two works 
were identical. 

The evidence of 655 as to its origin being thus largely of a negative character, we do 
not propose to discuss in detail whether it is likely to belong to any of the other known 
Apocryphal Gospels. There are several to which it might be assigned, but direct evidence 
is wanting. If the Gospel according to the Hebrews were thought of, it would be necessary 
to suppose that the resemblances in 655 to Matthew and Luke did not imply dependence 
upon them. In its relation to the Canonical Gospels 655 somewhat resembles 654, and 
the view that 655 was, though no doubt at least secondary, dependent not on Matthew 
and Luke, but upon some other document, whether behind the Synoptists or merely parallel 
to them, is tenable, but is less likely to commend itself to the majority of critics than the 
opposite hypothesis that 655. 1-16 is ultimately an abridgement of Matthew and Luke 
with considerable alterations. In either case the freedom with which the author of this 
Gospel handles the material grouped by St. Matthew and St. Luke under the Sermon 


on the Mount is remarkable. The Gospel from which 655 comes is likely to have been 
composed in Egypt before a.d. 150, and to have stood in intimate relation to the Gospel 
according to the Egyptians and the uncanonical source used by the author of II Clem. 
Whether it was earlier or later than these is not clear. The answer to the question 
put by the disciples in 655 is couched in much simpler and clearer language than that 
of the corresponding sentence in the answer to Salome recorded in the Gospel according 
to the Egyptians, the point of which is liable to be missed, while the meaning of 
655. 22-3 is unmistakable. But the greater directness of the allusion to Gen. iii. 7 
in 655 can be explained either by supposing that the version in the Gospel according 
to the Egyptians is an Encratite amplification of that in 655, or, almost but not quite as 
well, in our opinion, by the view that the expression in 655 is a toning down of the more 
striking phrase όταν τ6 τψ αισχύνης ίν8υμα ττατήσητΐ. As for the priority of 655 to the 
source of the uncanonical quotations in II Clem., the evidence is not sufficient to form any 

There remains the question of the likelihood of a genuine element in the story 
of which we now have three versions, though how far these are independent of each 
other is uncertain. As is usual with Agrapha (cf p. 21), the most diverse opinions have 
been held about the two previously known passages. Zahn {Gesch. d. NT. Kan. ii. 
p. 635) defends the version in the Gospel according to the Egyptians from the charge 
of Encratitism, and is inclined to admit its genuineness. Resch on the other hand 
{Agrapha, p. 386), while accepting the version of Clement, vehemendy attacks the other. 
Ropes again takes a different view, and though he thinks {Die Spruche Jesu, p. 131) 
that όταν . . . πατησητί is too ascetic for Jesus, is disposed to believe in a kernel of 
genuineness in the story. The criticisms of both Zahn and Ropes, however, are now 
somewhat discounted by the circumstance that they took the phrase corresponding to 
655. 22-3 to mean 'when you put off the body,' i.e. 'die,' whereas the evidence of the 
parallel in the papyrus gives the words a slightly different turn, and brings them more nearly 
into line with the following sentences όταν γ€νηται τα δυο ev, κ.τ.λ. But Zahn would, 
nevertheless, seem in the light of the new parallel to be right in maintaining that the 
passage in the Gospel according to the Egyptians does not go much further in an Encratite 
direction than, e.g. Matt. xxii. 30 and Luke xx. 34-6. The occurrence of another 
version of the story is an important additional piece of evidence in defence of the view that 
it contains at least some elements of genuineness, and a special interest attaches both 
to the form of the Saying in 655. 22-3 on account of the clearness of its language, 
and to its context, in which other matter closely related to the Canonical Gospels is found 
in immediate proximity. All this lends fresh value to what is, on account of the far- 
reaching problems connected with it, one of the most important and remarkable, and, since 
the discovery of 655, one of the belter attested, of the early Agrapha. 

656. Genesis. 

Height 24-4 cm. Plate II {c verso). 

Parts of four leaves from a papyrus codex of the book of Genesis in the 
Septuagint version. The MS. was carefully written in round upright uncials 
of good size and decidedly early appearance, having in some respects more 



affinity with types of the second century than of the third. To the latter^ 
however, the hand is in all probabihty to be assigned, though we should be 
inclined to place it in the earlier rather than the later part of the century ; in 
any case this may rank with the original Oxyrhynchus Logia (l) and the frag- 
ments of St. Matthew's and St. John's Gospels (2, 208) as one of the most 
ancient Greek theological books so far known, and it has some claim to be 
considered the oldest of the group. Another mark of age is perhaps to be 
recognized in the absence of the usual contractions for ^eo's, Kvpios, &c., but this 
may of course be no more than an individual peculiarity. The only abbreviation 
that occurs is the horizontal stroke instead of v, employed to save space at 
the end of a long line. Both high and middle (11. 13, 19) stops are found, but 
are sparingly used : more often a pause is marked by a slight blank space. 
A few alterations and additions have been made by a second hand, which seems 
also to be responsible for the numeration in the centre of the upper margin of 
each page. 

The evidence of so early a text is of particular value for the book of Genesis, 
where the uncial MSS. are most weakly represented. The only first-class 
MS. available for comparison practically throughout the parts covered by the 
papyrus, namely, xiv. 31-3, xv. 5-9, xix. 32-xx. 11, xxiv. 28-47, xxvii. 33-3, 
40-1, is the Codex Alexandrinus (A). The Vatican and Ambrosian codices do 
not begin till later in the book, the Sinaiticus (N) is defective except for occa- 
sional verses in the twenty- fourth chapter, the readings of D, the Cottonian MS., 
which for the most part survives only in a collation { = D), are unascertainable in 
XX. 4-1 1 and xxiv. 38-30, and the Bodleian Genesis (E) fails us in xxiv. The 
result of a collation, where possible, with these MSS., is to show that the 
papyrus, while seldom supporting E, does not side continuously with either N, A, 
or D, though, of course, too little of Ν remains for a satisfactory comparison. As 
a general rule the readings favoured by the new witness are the shorter ones ; 
cf. e.g. notes on 11. 16, 37, 47-8, 5% ^3, 6^, 74, 139, 138-9, 154, 183, 185, 188, as 
against 11. 43, 8 1, 144, 163. Not infrequently variants occur otherwise attested only 
by cursive MSS., though here too no consistent agreement can be traced, and the 
mixed character of the cursive texts is further emphasized. The papyrus is 
certainly pre-Lucianic, but it has two readings characteristic of Lagarde's Luci- 
anic group ( = Holmes 19, 108, 118), yivov^ for του yhovs in xix. 38 and the 
omission of ^κύθ^ν (with the Hebrew) in xxiv. 38. Readings common to this 
group and other cursives are kK^vrj for ταντγι in xix. ^'^, and avhpts for άνθρωττοι in 
XX. 8. On the other hand, the papyrus opposes the Lucianic group in the 
addition of την νύκτα ξκίίνην in xix. $5, and the omission of ^φοβηθην . . . αυτήν in 
XX. 3, in the one case against, in the other with, the Hebrew. The number of 



variants which are altogether new, considering the scope of the fragments, is con- 
siderable ; see 11. 48, S5, 5^, 81, 114, I54, i55, 160, 163, 181. A peculiar feature is 
the tendency to omit the word κύριο? when applied to the Deity ; this occurs in 
no fewer than four passages (11. 17, 122, 155, 166), in three of which (11. 17, 1%%, 
166) the omission has been made good by the second hand. A blank space was 
originally left where the word occurred in 1. 17. In the version of Aquila the 
Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew letters, and this pecuHarity reappears in 
a few Hexaplaric MSS. of the Septuagint. The papyrus offers the first example 
of a similar tendency to avoid the sacred name in a text otherwise independent 
of the Aquila tradition. 

The collation with the chief uncial codices given below is based on the 
edition of Swete, while the occasional references to the cursives are derived from 
Holmes ; for some additional information we are indebted to Mr. N. McLean. 


Verso xiv. 21-3. 

Recto XV. 5-9. 

[Αβραμ δοΐ] μοι tovs ανδρα[9 
[τηρ Se ιππο]ν λαβξ σβαντω 
[€L7r€v δι Αβρά μ irpos βασιλέα 
[Σοδόμων ζκ]τ€^ί^^νω την χ€[ί] 
5 [ρα μου npos τ]ον 6eov τον ν 
[ψιστον OS eK]TLaeu τον ουρά 
[νον και την 'γ\ην €ί αττο σπαρ 
[τιου €ως σφ\αιρωτηρο^ ν 
\τΓθδηματο^\ λημψομαι 

ΙΟ [σ7Γ]€ρμα σ[ο]υ [και €ΤΓΐστ€νσ€ν 
[Α]βραμ τω θ^ω [και έλογισθη 
αντω €is δικαιοσ[ννην enrev 
δξ irpos αντον• €γ[ω ο 6(09 ο e^a 
γαγων σε €Κ γωρ[α9 Χαλδαιων ωσ 

15 Τ€ δούναι σοι τη[ν γην ταυτην 
[κ]\ηρονομησαΐ' [einev δε δ^σττο 
τα κυρΐ€ κατά τι Ύ[νωσομαι οτι 
[κ]ληρονομησω α[ντην €inev 
[δ€ α]ντω. λαβξ μ[οι δαμαλιν Tpie 

20 [τι\ζονσαν και αίγα [τρΐ€τιζονσαν 

(δ) Verso xix. 32-xx. 2. 

μξτ αντον κ[αι ξξαναστησω 
μ€ν €Κ τον [πατρο9 ημών σπ€ρ 
μα €ΤΓθτισα[ν δζ τον πατΐρα 

25 αντων Οΐνθ[ν €V τη ννΚΤΙ €Κ€1 

νη κα[ι] €ΐσ€λ[θονσα η 7Γρ€σβυτ€ 

Recto XX. 2-1 1. 

[^6 Αμ€ΐβ€λ(χ β]ασιλ€ν9 Fepa 


65 [ρων και ^λαβ^ν τ]ην "Χαρρα και 
[ζίσηΧθ^ν ο Beos] προ? Αμιβζ 
[λεχ ev νπνω την] νύκτα και εί 
[ττξ,ν ιδού συ απ]οθνησκζΐς π[ε 



pa €Κ0ΐμη6η [μ€τα τον πατρός 
την νύκτα ζκ[ξΐνην και ουκ u 
8η €v τω κοίμη[θηναί αυτήν και 

3θ ανασ[τ]ηναι ey[ei/6T0 5e τη ζτταυ 
[ρ]ίον και €ΐπ€ν [η πρζσβυτβρα 
τη ν€ωτ€ρα ϊδίου €Κ0ΐμη]θην €χθ65 
μ€τα τον πατρ[ο9 7]μων] π[ο]τι 
σωμ^ν αυτόν ο[ινον και τη]ν νν 

35 κτα [τ]α[ντην] κα[ι €ΐσ€λθονσ]α κο[ι 
μηθητι μξτ α[υτον και e^ava 
στησωμζν e/c [τον πατρόν ημών 
[σ\πζρμα 67Γ0Τίσ[αν 8ζ και ev τη 
ννκτι ξΚΐΐνη τ[ον πατ€ρα] α[ν 

4© των οινον και €[iaeX6ov]<ra rj [ve 
ωτ€ρα €Κθΐμη[θη μ^τα τον ττα 
Tpos αντη9 τη[ν νύκτα €κ]€[ινην 
και ουκ €ΐδη e[v τω κοιμη 
[θ]η[να]ι και αν[αστηναι και σνν 

45 [€λ]αβον αι δ[νο θνγατ€ρ€ς Λωτ 
€κ τ[ο]ν πατρός α[ντων και €τ€Κ€ν 
η π[ρ€]σβντ€ρα ν[ιον και €κα 
λ6[σ6] όνομα αν[του Μωαβ e/c του 
πατ[ρ]ο? μου ουτ[θ9 ττατηρ Μωαβι 

5θ των €ω9 της σ[ημζρον ημξρας 
€T€Kev 8e κ[αι η ν^ωτίρα υιον 
και [€]καλ€σζν [το όνομα αυτού 
Αμ[μ\αν wo? Ύ[ζνου^ μου ου 
Tos πατήρ Αμμ[ανιτων €ωί 

55 ''"Π^ ημέρας ταύτης 

[ζκινη]σζν 8€ €Κ€ΐθ€ν [Α]βραα[μ 
[βί?] γην προ9 λίβα κ[αι] ωκτ][σ€]ν 
[α]να μ€σον Καδ[η]ς κα[ι] ανα μ€ 
[σ•ο]ν ϋονρ και 7Γαρ[ωκ]ησζ[ν €v Fe 

60 [papoijs €ί7Γ6ί/ 8e [Α]βρα[αμ] nepi 








[pi τη9 yvvaiKos] η9 eXa/3ey αν [ 
[τη 8e ίστιν συν]ωκηκνϊα av8p[i 
[Αμιβζλζχ^ 8e] of^ ηψατο αντη[9 
[και €ΐ7Γ€ν Kvpie]• €θνο? αγνοούν 
και δι[καιον απ]ολ€ΐ9 ουκ αυτό? ■ 
μοι €ΐ[π€ν α8€]λφη μου €στιν 
και αυτ[η μοι €i7r]€v αδ€λφθ9 μου 
€στ[ιν €v καθαρ]α καρ8ια και e[v 8ικαι 
οσ]υν[η γξίρων ζ\ποιησα τούτο 
€ΐπζν 8€ αυτω] ο 6eos καθ 1'7ΓΙ'[ο] 
καγω ζγνων ο]τι ξν καθαρά κα[ρ 
δ]ια [ζποιησα? τ]ουτο και €φισα 


μ]ην κ[αγω σου το]υ μη αμαρτ€ΐν σε 
€i]y €μ[€ €V€Kev] τούτου ουκ αψη 
κ]α σ€ [αψασθαι αυ]τη9 νυν Se απο 
5o]y τ[ην γυναίκα τ]ω ανθρωπω ο 
τι] ΤΓρ[οφητη^ ^στ^ιν και π\ρ]οσζυ[^ξ 
ται 7Γ€/)ί σου και ζη]ση €ΐ <5e μη α 
ποδι8ω? γνώθι ο]τι αποθανη 
συ και πάντα τα σ]α και ωρθ[ρίσγν 
Αμιβ^λζχ το] πρωϊ κα[ϊ\ e/ca[Xe](re[i/ 
παντας του9 π]αιδα9 αυτο[υ] κα[ι 
ζλαλησξν παντ]α τα ρήματα ταυ 
τα €is τα ωτα αυτω]ν ΐφοβηθη 
σαν Se παντ€9 οι a]v8p€s σ[φ]ο8ρα 
και €καλ€σ€ν Αμ]€ΐβξλξχ τον 
Αβραάμ] και emev αυτω τι του 
το] €ποιησα9 ημ[ι]ν μη τι ημαρ 
το]μ€ν 6ί9 σ€ ΟΤΙ €πηγαγ€[ς] ([π e 
μ€ και επί την βασιΧααν μου α[μαρ 
τ]ιαν μΐγαλην βργον ο ου8€[ι]? π[οι 
ησ€ΐ π€]ποιηκα9 μοι €ΐπ€ν ί[ε 
[Α]μ€ΐβ€λ€χ τω Αβραάμ τι €νι[δων 



[Χαλρρα^ τηί γννα[ίκο]9 αυτόν 
[αδ€]λφη μου ζσ\τί\ν α[7Γ€]στ€ίλ€ΐ/ 

[eJTTOiT/aay τούτο enrev Se Λβρ[ααμ 
[eiJTra γαρ [α]ρα ουκ ξστιν ^eoofe/Seia 
[e]v τω τοττω τούτω e/xe r[e aire 


Ι05 [κτζίν\ουσιν iveKev τη9 y\yvai 


Recto xxiv. 28-37. 


δραμονσα η τταίί απηγγ€ί\€[ν 
€19 τον OLKOV τη9 μητροζ αυτη9 


κατα ρήματα ταύτα τη Se Ρφξκ 

Ι ΙΟ κα [a]5eX[0^s ην ω όνομα Λαβαν 
και ίδραμβν Λαβαν προ? τον αν 
θρωπον €^ω ίτη τη? πηγή? Kat 
€yei/er[o] ηνικα €i8ev τα ζνωτια 
και τα ψίλια πξρι τα? γ^ιρα? τη? 

115 αδξλψη? αυτού και ο[τ]€ ηκον 
aev τα ρήματα Ρ€β€[κ]κα? τη? 
αδ[€]λφη? [αυτ]ου λξγονση? ου 
τω? λ€λα[λη]κ€ν μοι ο ανθρωπο[? 
και ηλθίν [7Γρ]ο? τον ανθρωπον e 

120 στηκοτο? αυτού em των καμη 
λων €πι τη? πηγή? και €ine[v αυ 
τω [δ]€υρο naeXOe ζνλογητο? κ[υριο5 
ϊνα τι ζστηκα? (ξω €γω δξ ητ[οι 
μακα την οικιαν και τόπον ται\? 

125 KaijSjiX\oL? ΐίσηλθζν δβ ο ανθρω 

[π]ο? ei? τ[η]ν ο[ικια]ν και απ€σα^[€ν 
[τα? κα]μηλον? κ[αι] €δωκ€ν α)(υ[ρα 
[και ^ορτ]ασματα ται? καμηλοι[? 
[και νδ]ωρ τοι? ποσιν αυτού και τ[οι? 

130 [ποσ4] των αν[δρων τω]ν μ€[τ] α[ν 
[του και πα]ρζθ[ηκ€ν 
3 lines lost 

Verso xxiv. 38-47. 

150 ξ 

[πο]ρ€υση και ei? την φν[\η]ν μου 
κ[α]ι λημψη γυ[ν]αικα τω νϊω μου 
€ΐπα δξ τω κν[ρι]ω μου μη ποτ€ 
ου πορξ,υθησξται [γ\υνη μ€Τ €μου 

155 '^^^ iirrev μοι ο Oeo? ω ζυηρ^στη 
σα evavTiov αυτού αυτό? απο 
στίλίΐ τον αγγίλον αυτού μβ 
τ[α] σου και [[e]] ζυοδωσ^ι την οδον 
σ[ο]υ και [λη]μψη γννα[ι]κα τω νϊω 

ι6ο μ[ο]υ ίκ τη? φυλή? μου η €Κ του 
οίκου του πατρο? μου τοτ€ αθω 
ο? ξση απο τη? αρα? μου ηνικα 
γα[ρ\ eav ζΐσ^λθη? €ΐ? την βμην 
φν[λ]ην και μη σοι δωσιν και ίση αθω 

165 ο[?] απο του όρκου μου και €λ[θ]ων 
[ση]μ€ρον €π[ι τ]ην πηγην €[ι]πα κν 
[ρΐ€ ο θ]ξο? του κυρίου μου Λβρ[αα]μ ei συ 
[€νο]δο[ι]? την οδον μου η ν[υν] ζγ[ω 
[πο]ρζυομα[ι] επ [αυτήν ιδ]ου €[γ]ω €0[€ 

170 [στ]ηκα €πι τη? [π]ηγη? του [υδατο? 
[αι δ]ζ θνγατ^ρξ? των ανθρ[ωπων 
[τη]? πολζω? €ξ€λ€νσοντ[αι αντλη 
[σαι] ύδωρ και €σται η παρθ[€νο? η 


[€α]ν €ΐπω ποτισον /xe μξ[ικρον υ 
175 [δ(*>ρ] ^[κ] τ[η? υδρία?] σον [και €ΐπη 
[μοι πΐ€ συ και ται? κάμηλοι? σου υ] 



'35 {trai^ Αβραάμ] eyo) ^ι[μι 

[ τον] Kvpiou [μου σφοδρά 

και υψωθη [και] €δ[ωκ€ν αντω 
πρόβατα κα[ί μοσχον? και 1 8ο 

3 αργυρών και π[αίδίσκα9 και 

140 [κ]αμη[λο]ν9 και ov[ov9 και €Τ€Κ€ 

[^αρ]ρα [η γννη τον κυρίου μου νιον 
[ίνα τω κυριω μου μ]€[τ]α το [γηρα 
[σαι αυτόν και ζδωκ]€ν αυ[τω παν 185 
[τα οσα ην αυτω και ω]ρκισ€[ν μ€ ο 

145 [κύριος μου \€γων ου] λημψη [γν 
[ναικα τω υιω μου απο των] θνγα[τ€ 
[ρων των Χαναναιων ev] ois [e 

2 lines lost 190 

[δρ€υσομαι αυτ]η [η γννη ην ήτοι 
[μασ€ν κύριος τ]ω 6[€ραποντι αυτόν 
[Ισαάκ και] €v τουτ[ω γνωσομαι ο 
[τι π€ποιη]κα9 eX€[oy τ]ω [κυριω 
[μου Αβραάμ] και ey^v^TO €v τω 
[συντ€λζσαι μζ] λαλουντα ξν τη 
[διάνοια] ΐυ[θν?] Ρ[€]β€κκα ίξξπο 
[ρ€υ€Τθ] ξ)([ουσ]α την υδι^^ρι]αν €πι 
[των ωμ]ων κ[αι κ]α[τφη €π]ι τ[ην 
[πη'/η]ν και υ[δρ€υσατο ππα δβ αν 
[τη πο]τισον [/χ€ και σπ^υσασα κα 
[θ€ΐλ€]ν την [υδριαν αφ ίαντης και 
[€ΐ]π€ν 7Γ€[ί€ συ και τα? καμήλους 
[σο]υ ποτ[ιω και βπιον και τας καμη 
[λου]9 μου [ζποτισ^ν και ηρωτησα 
[αντην] κ[αι 


Recto xxvii. 32-3• 

Verso xxvii. 40-1. 

ζξ]ξστη [5e 
195 μζ•γα\η]ν σφ[οδρα 
€ΐσ€ν€γ]κας [μοι 

] €κλυ[σ€ίς 
200 τ]ω Ιακ[ωβ 
αυτο]υ elinev 

Ι. [Αβραμ bos] is somewhat short for the lacuna, but to add rrpos would make the 
supplement rather long. 

4. The deletion of t may be due to either the first or second hand ; tκτ(vω AD. 

13. προς αυτόν: SO most cursives; αυτω AD. The e of c^d) seems to have been 
altered from some other letter. 

16. [κ]ληρονομησαι: SO A; κ\. αυτήν Ό. 

17. A blank space, sufficient for four letters, was left by the original scribe between τα 
and κατά, and in this κυρίΐ was inserted by the second hand; cf. 11. 122, 155, and 166. 

25. ΐκ(ϊ\νη : so a number of cursives, including the ' Lucianic ' group ; ταύτη ADE. 
27. αντης which is read after πατρός by ADE seems to have been omitted by the 



papyrus, the line being quite long enough without it. On the other hand τψ νύκτα (Κίΐνην 
is omitted in I). 

28. (ΐ8η : the same spelling for η8(ΐ recurs in 1. 43 ; €γνω D in both places. 

32. tt; vi^repa \ SO the Codex Caesareus and several cursives; προϊ τψ veaTepav ΑΏΈ. 

€χθίς has been added at the end of the line by the second hand. 

36. μ of μβτ has been altered from a. 

37—8. i/c . . . [σ]π€ρμα: SO AD; σπ. sk rov π. ημών Ε. 

39-43• The position of the small fragment at the ends of these lines is made 
practically certain by the recto (cf note on 1. 81); but the scanty vestiges in 1. 42 do 
not suit particularly well and the reading adopted is very problematical. Moreover above 
the line between the supposed α and »; is a curved mark Avhich does not suggest any 
likely letter and remains unexplained. One cursive (108) has και η vearepa, but there 
is no ground for attributing this to the papyrus. 

42. τη[ν ννκτα (κ]€[ινην: om. ΑΌΈ. The papyrus reading is found in the cursives 
56 (margin), 74, 106, 130, 134, 135. 

43. (ώη : cf. 1. 28, note. 

47. There would be room for two or three more letters in this line. 

47—8. €καλί[σ6] όνομα: fKokfaev τυ όνομα ΑΌΈ.. There is not sufficient room in the 
lacuna for the usual ν ίφΐλκυστικόν, still less for το. 

48. Xeyova-a which is read after Μωαβ by ADE was certainly omitted by the papyrus 
(so Jerome), the passage being thus quite parallel with the explanation of the name Αμμαν 
in the following verse. 

53. vios y[efoui : SO the 'Lucianic ' cursives ; ο vios του γένους A, vios του γ. D, υιον του 
γ. Ε. 

55• ΤΙ?? ημέρας ταύτης : της σημΐρον ημ'ραί ADE. The rest of the line was left blank, 
a new chapter commencing at 1. 56. 

56. \fκιvη'^σev be : και ίκινησΐν AZ)E. 

57. ττρος \ιβα : SO AD ; ΐωί \ιβα Ε. 

62. A has ΟΤΙ before αδελφή, but on is omitted, as in the papyrus, by D and E. After 
taTiv the papyrus omits the second half of the verse (φοβηθη γαρ eOTfif {on) γυνή μου ίστιν 

μη TTore αποκτίΐνωσιν αυτόν at avbpis της ποΧεως δι αυτήν (ADE), aS do the CUrsiveS 1 5 (first 

hand), 82, 106, 107, 135. 

64. A/iet/3eXex or A/xtjSeXex is the regular spelling of the name in this text. Αβιμί\€χ 

67. There is evidently not room in the lacuna for A's reading einev αυτω ίδου σν 
αποθνήσκεις, and the omission of αυτω is more probable (so DE and many cursives) than that 
of συ (om. E). 

74. Ε inserts on before α8(\φη here and αδελφός in 1. 75. 

79. καθαρά κα[ρδ1ία : SO A; καρΒια καθαρά Ε. 

80. fφισa[μy]V : ΐφ(ΐσαμην A, (φησαμην Ε. 

8r. ι^αγω {ίγω ΑΕ) may have been merely repeated here from 1. 79, but, as Mr. McLean 
points out, it is supported by the Hebrew and may well be a genuine reading. The other 
letters on this fragment (11. 80-5) suit so exactly that there can be no reasonable doubt 
that it is rightly placed here, although there is also a slight difficulty with regard to 
the verso. 

αμαρτ€ΐν, the reading of the first hand, is that of AE. 

86. ζη]ση : so A ; ζησ(ΐ Ε. 

93. α]ν8ρ(ς: so a number of cursives; άνθρωποι AE. 
104. τ[ί: so A ; bt E. 


105. The reading of the interlinear insertion is very uncertain, but the alteration 
apparently concerns the termination of the verb, and it seems more probable that 
αποκτ€ίνονσί was corrected to αποκτ^νονσι than vice versa, αποκτ^νουσι AE; αποκτ^ινουσι occurs 
m the cursive 72; cf 1. 165, note. 

109. The reading of A here is exactly parallel to that of the papyrus, τα after 
κατά havmg been originally omitted and supplied by an early corrector. fc^DE are 

112. Tijs ■m)yηs: την πηγην Α. The genitive seems to have come in from the 
next verse. 

113. «δ€ΐ/: idev A. 

114. TTfpi : ίτΓΐ A, iv Tais χ^ρσί a number of the cursives. 

122. κ[νριος has been added at the end of the line by the second hand: ks Afr^D. 

123. ητ[οι]μακα: SO ^ίZ>; ητοιμασα A. 
126. α7Γίσα|[€ΐ;: SO i*iD ; (π^σαξ^ν A. 

129. The papyrus agrees with A in omitting viylraadai which t^D add after υ8ωρ. 
135-6. The reading of the papyrus here cannot be determined; t^A have κνρως 

8e €υ\ογησ(ν, D [<ct ί]υοδωσ6ΐ/. Kvpios 8e (ν\λογησ(ν OV ίν\ο8ωσ(ν τον makes the end of 1. 1 35 

a little long, but a blank space may have been originally left for Kvpios as in 11. 122 and 
126 or Se may have been omitted. 

138-9. The papyrus here omits several words and its exact reading is not quite clear. 

A has πρόβατα και μόσχους και apyvpiav και χρυσών παώας και παώισκας καμήλους κ.η ovovs, 

Ό leaves out the και after μόσχου:, transposes αργυρών and χρυσών and inserts και before 
παώα:. It is just possible that the papyrus agreed with D in reading μόσχους χρυσών 
και, but Tr[ai8as και τταώισκας και can evidently not be got into 1. 139, and more probably 
both χρυσών and και παιδας were Omitted and και was written with each substantive. The 
words originally missing were probably supplied by the second hand at the bottom of 
the page, for opposite 1. 139 is the semicircular sign commonly used to mark an omission• 
cf. e.g. 16. iii. 3. 

141-2. It is quite possible that the lines were divided υιΐον and that eva was omitted 
as in D. 

143. αυτόν: OV αυτήν (^D). 

144. The length of the lacuna indicates that the text agreed with D and the second 
corrector of i^ in adding πάντα before the simple οσα of l^A. 

152. After μου b^AD add €Κΐΐθ(ν. The papyrus here supports the 'Lucianic' cursives 
19 and 108. 

154. πορ^υθησίται'. SO a number of cursives; ττορευβη A, πορΐυσίται ^D. 
[■yjvvij : η γυνή Ai^D, 

155. ο θ(ος: κύριος ο βΐος Α, Om. ο θίος \^Ό. 

156. tvavTiov: SO AD and the second corrector of ti; (νωπών ^. 
αποστΐΚΐΐ : SO i^D ; (ξαποστ^λει A. 

160. 17: και MSS. 

162. απο: soi^D; CK A. 

163. ίΐσΛθης: ίλθης AZ>. 

την (μην φυ[λ]ην : SO Ζ? ; την φυλην μου Α. 

164. συι δωσιν. this is the order in many of the cursives; δωσιν σοι AD. και before 
(ση is omitted by D, 

165. όρκου: SO the cursive 72 (cf. note on 1. 105); ορκισμου V^AD. 

166. κυ[ρΐ( (so «AZ>) is again due to the second hand; cf. 1. 17, note. 

168. «7 ι{υν]: there is not room in the lacuna for more than two letters, so ην [νυν] 
{^AD) is inadmissible. 3 is found also in the cursives 75 and 106. 

D a 


169. ΐφ\ΐστ\ηκα'. ΐστηκα \^kD; there is an erasure before ΐστηκα in A, and apparently 
€φ€(ττηκα (which also occurs in several cursives) was the original reading. 

170. τη! [τΓ^ηγηί '. SO i^D j την πηγην Α. 

171. [at S]e: SO D ; km ai i^A. 

172. €ξ(λ(νσοντ[αι : SO AD; (κπορβυονταιϊ^. The papyrus seems to have had αντλησαι, 
which is found in some of the cursives; vbpevaaaOai, the better supported reading, is 
too long. 

174. [fa]v: the papyrus follows the vulgar spelling. cy« was originally omitted, and 
was added by the second hand. 

μΐίκρον is also the spelling of ^i. 

175-6. The reading printed is that of A, which on the whole seems to suit the space 
best ; but μοι may have been written at the end of 1. 175, and the variant of t^ me και συ or 
of Ό και συ me is quite possible. 

178. ^epanovTi αυτού {^) seems more likely than e[aυτoυ depanovTi {KD), for though the 
supposed θ may equally well be e the line is already rather long and the lacuna in 1. 179 is 
sufficiently filled with [ίσαακ και\. 

1 8 1 . ev τω', προ του t^ A, ττριν η D. 
183. [Staj/ota] : so t^ ; hiavoia μου ΑΣ). 
ev[eus] : SO ^^A : και ιδού D. 

185. Though the κ of κ[αι is not quite certain and still less the a of κ]a[τeβη, the 
papyrus clearly agreed with AJD in omitting αυτηί which is read after ωμών by t^. 

188. A here has την υδριαν em τον βραχίονα αυτής αφ eaυτηs και emev, while ^D Omit βττι 

τον βραχίονα. The papyrus reading was still shorter, since not more than about 1 5 letters 
should stand in the lacuna, and there can be little doubt that αυτή! was left out, as in some 
of the cursives. 

189. ne[ie : 1. me. 

192. This line may have been the last of the column, but the recto has one line more. 

657. Epistle to the Hebrews. 

Height 26-3 cm. 

This considerable fragment of the Epistle to the Hebrews is written on the 
back of the papyrus containing the new epitome of Livy (668). The text is in 
broad columns, of which eleven are represented, corresponding to Ch. ii. 14-v. 5, 
X. 8-xi. 13, and xi. 28-xii. 17, or about one-third of the whole. The columns 
are numbered at the top, those preserved being according to this numeration 
47~5°) ^3-5, ^7~9 ') it is thus evident that the Epistle to the Hebrews was 
preceded in this MS. by something else, probably some other part of the 
New Testament. The hand is a sloping uncial of the oval type, but somewhat 
coarse and irregular, and apparently in the transitional stage between the 
Roman and Byzantine variety. It is very similar in appearance to the hand 
of 404, a fragment of the Shepherd of Hermes, of which a facsimile is given in 


P. Oxy. Ill, Plate iv ; and we should attribute it to the first half of the fourth 
century, while it may well go back to the first quarter. As stated in the introd. 
to 668, the papyri with which this was found were predominantly of the third 
century, and it is not likely to have been separated from them by any wide 
interval. The fact that the strips of cursive documents which were used to 
patch and strengthen the papyrus before the verso was used are of the third 
and not the fourth century points to the same conclusion. There is no sign 
anywhere of a second hand, and such corrections as occur are due to the original 
scribe, who is responsible for occasional lection signs and the punctuation by 
means of a double point inserted somewhat freely and not always accurately 
(cf. e.g. 1. 19); a single point is occasionally substituted. This system of 
punctuation is remarkable, for it seems to correspond to an earlier division 
into στίχοι longer than those in extant MSS. and frequently coinciding with 
the arrangement in the edition of Blass (Halle^ 1903). The contractions 
usual in theological MSS. are found, IC being written for Ίησονί. Orthography 
is not a strong point, instances of the confusion common at this period between 
t and et, e and at, υ and ot, being especially frequent ; but apart from minor 
inaccuracies the text is a good and interesting one. Its chief characteristic 
is a tendency in Chs. ii-v to agree with B, the Codex Vaticanus, in the omission 
of unessential words or phrases ; cf. notes on 11. 15, 24, and 60. This gives the 
papyrus a peculiar value in the later chapters, where Β is deficient ; for here too 
similar omissions are not infrequent (cf. notes on 11. 118, 135, 151, 153, 161, 234), 
and it is highly probable that they were also found in B, particularly when, as 
is sometimes the case, D (the Claromontanus, of the sixth century) is on the 
same side. Of the other MSS. the papyrus is nearest to D (cf. notes on 11. 60, 
135, 145, 152, 154, 178, 333, 334-6), but the two sometimes part company (cf. 
notes on 11. 139, 163, 180); only in one doubtful case (note on 1. 168) does it 
support Κ against the consensus of the other MSS. Variants peculiar to the 
papyrus, apart from the omissions already referred to, are noted at 11. 33, $y, 
io6, 115, 156, 163, 337, 339. We give a collation with the Textus Receptus 
and the text of Westcott and Hort, adding particulars concerning the readings 
of the principal authorities. 

Col. i. 


[κατάργηση το}/] το KpuTOS έχοντα του θανάτου ϋ. 14 

[τουτ€στι το]ι/ δίαβολον : και απαλλαγή του 
[roi/y οσοί φοβω β]ανατου δια παρ{τον^το5 του ζην 
5 [€νοχοι ήσαν δου]λζΐας : ου γαρ δηπου αγγέλων 


[€7ηλαμβαν€ταί] aWa <τπ€ρματο9 Αβραάμ em 
[λαμβανζται οθ]€ν ωψιλςν κατά πάντα τοΐ9 α 
[δίλφοί? ομοιωθ]ηναι : ίνα €λ€ημων γενηται 
[και TTKTTos αρχΐξ]ρ€νς τα ττρο? τον θν €ΐ? το «λάσ- 
ιο [κ€σ6αι τα? αμαρ]τια9 του λάου : ev ω yap ττ^πον 
\6ev αυτό? πιρασ θα? : δύναται τοι? πιραζομξ 
[νοΐ9 βοηθησαι ο]θ€ν αδζλφοι άγιοι κλησίω? e 
[τΓονρανιου μζτο)(]οι : κατανοήσατε τον αποστοΧδ 
[και apxiepea τη? ο]μολογια? ημών Ιν ττιστον οντά 
15 [τω ττοιησαντι] αυτόν : ω? κ€ Μωϋση? fv τω οίκω 
[αυτού π\αο]νο? γαρ δοζη? ουτο? τταρα Μώϋσην 
[ηξιωται καθ ό]σ•ον πλίΐονα τιμη(ν) e^ei του [ο]ικου : ο 
[κατασκ€υα]σα? αυτόν : πα? γαρ οίκο? κατασκ^υ 
'αζΐται ιπΓο] τινο? : ο δζ πάντα κατασκεύασα? : θ? 
2θ [και Μωυση^? μεν πιστό? εν ολω τω οίκω αυτού 
[ω? θεραπω]ν ει? μαρτύρων : των Χαληθησομε 
[νων Χ? δε] ω? νιο? επι τον οίκον αυτόν ου οίκο? 
[εσμεν ημει]? : εαν την παρρησιαν και το καυγτι 
[μα τη? ελπ]ιδο? κατασχωμεν : διο καθω? λέγει 
25 [το πνα το α^γιον σήμερον εαν τη? φωνή? αντου 
[ακουσητε] μη σκΧηρννητε τα? κάρδια? ϋμων 
[ω? εν τω πα]ραπικρασμω κατά την ημεραν του 
[πιρασμον] εν τη ερημω ον επιρ{α)σαν οι πατερε? νμώ 

Col. ϋ. 


3© εν δ[οκΐβασια και ειδον τα έργα μου τεσσερακον[τα ϋί. ρ 

ετη [δι]ο προσωκθεισα τη γενεά ταντη και ειπ[ον 
αει [πΧ]αν[ω'νται εν τη κάρδια αυτών διο ουκ εγνω[σαν 
τα[? οδον? μο]υ ω? ωμοσα εν τη οργή μου ει εισ[ε 
Χευ^^σοντ]αι ε[ι?] την καταπαυσιν μου : βλέπεται α[δεΧ 

35 ψοι μη] ποτέ εστε εν τινι ϋμων κάρδια πονηρ[α 

[απι]σ[τια]? : εν τω αποστηναι απο θυ ζωντο? : αλ [ 
[λα] π(£^^ρά\καΧεσατε εαχττον? καθ έκαστη ν ημ[ε 


[pa\v α[χ]ρί ου το σήμερον καΚ€[ι]ται : ϊνα μ[η σκλη 

[ρνν]6[η TIS €]ξ νμων άπατη τ[η]9 αρμαηας [μ€το 
4θ [χοί] γα[ρ του Χ]ν γ€γοναμ€ν : eavnep την α[ρχην 

[τ]ηί υποστασζω9 μ^χρί TeXovs βίβαιαν [κατά 

[σ]χωμ€ν ev τω λ€γ€σθαί σημζρον €αν της φ[ω 

νης αυτού ακουσητ€ : μη σκληρυνητ€ τα? κ[αρ 

Seias ϋμων ω? ev τω παραπικρασμω : ti[v€S 
45 γαρ ακουσαντί? παρίττικραναν αλλ ου 7Γα[ντ€9 

οί €^€λ^ο[ί/τ€9 c|] Αιγύπτου δια Μωϋσζω? τισ[ιν 

δ€ προσωχ[θ€ΐσ€ν] τ^σσ^ρακοντα €τη ουχί t[ois 

αμαρτησασιν ων τα κωλα €π€σ€ν cv τη €[ρη 

μω : τισ[ϊ\ν Be ωμοσ^ν μη €ΐσζλ€υσ€σθαι e[i9 
50 τ[η]ν καταπαυσιν αυτού et μη τοι? απιθησασ€[ιν 

κ[α]ι βλ€πομ€ν οτι [ο]υκ ηδυνασθησαν €ΐσ€[λ 

θίΐν δι α[πιστ]ζΐαν : φοβηθωμ^ν ουν μη 7γ[ο 

τ€ κατα[λι]πομ€νη? €παγγ€λια? €ΐσ€λθ€[ιν 

[€]iy την καταπαυσιν αυτού δοκη tis €ξ υμ[ων 
55 ϋστ€ρ[η]κ€ναι : και γαρ €σμ^ν €υηγγ€λισμ€ν[οι 

Col. iii. 
[καθαπ^ρ κ]ακ€ΐνοι αλλ ουκ ωφζλησ€ν ο λόγο? iv. 2 

[της ακοής] €Κ€ΐνου? μη σννκ€Κ€ρασμ€νους 
[τη πιστι το]ις ακουσασιν : €ΐσ€ρχομ€Θα γαρ €iy 

60 [καταπα]υσιν οι πιστ€υσαντ€ς : καθώς €ΐρηκ€ν 

[ως ωμο]σα ev τη οργή μου €ΐ €λΐυσοντ€ €ΐς την κα 
[ταπαυ]σιν μου : καίτοι τ[ω]ν €ργων απο καταβο 
[λης κοσ]μου γίνηθίντων ίίρηκίν που τηρι της 
[ξβδομ\ης ούτως : και κα[τΐ]παυσ€ς ο θς €v τη ημ€ 

65 [ρα τη €β]δομη απο παντ[ων] των €ργων αυτού : και 
[€v τουτ]ω πα[λ]ιν €ΐσ€λ€υ[σο]νται €ΐς την καταπαυσϊ 
[μου €π]ί ουν απολιπ€Τ€ τινας ασίλθίΐν €ΐς αυτή 
[και οι πρ]οτ€ρον (υαγγίλισθ^ντ^ς ουκ €ΐσΐ7[λ^]δ 
[δι απιθι]αν πάλιν τίνα όριζα ημ^ραν σημίρό 


70 [ev Δαϋ]ζί8 λ€γ<ον μ(τα τοσούτον yjpovov [<a]^[<»]y 
\τΓ ροξΐρη\ται : \σ\ημξρον eav τη? ψωνη? αντ[ου α 
[κουσητ]€ μ[η] σκληρυνητ€ τα? καρδία? νμ[ωι/ 
[€i γαρ α]ντον? Ι? κατβίΓαυσ^ν ουκ αν 7r[e/)i αλ 
\λη? eXajXi μζτα ταύτα ημ^ρα? : αρα aTr[oXc 

75 [τΓξται σ]αββατίσμο? τω λαω του θυ ο γαρ [ettr 
[€λθων] €ΐ[? την] κατατταυσιν αυτ\ου] : και α[υ]το? 
\κατ€π]αυσ\<Εν] απο των ζργων ai{rou] ωσ[τΓξρ\ α 
[τΓΟ των ί\δίων ο θ?• σττουδασωμςν [ο]υ[ν] βίσελ 
[θζΐν €ΐ]? €Κ€ΐνην την καταπαυσι[ν ιν^α μη €v 

80 [τω αυτ]ω τι? υποδιγματι π^ση τη? ατηθ[ί\α? : ^ώ 

[γαρ ο \ο]γο? του θυ και €ν€ργη? : και [τ]ομ[ωτ€ρο]? υ 

Col. ίν. 
π€ρ πασαν μαγα[ιραν διστομον και διικνουμ€ ίν. 1 3 

νο? a^^pu μ€ρισμ[ου ψν)^η? και πν? αρμών Τ€ 
85 και μυξλων και κ[ριτικο? ^νθυμησ^ων και €v 

νυων καρδξία? : [και ουκ ίστιν κτισι? αφανή? 

€νωπιον αυτού : [πάντα δί γυμνά και τίτραχ^η 

λισμ€να τοι? οφ[6α\μοι? αυτού προ? ον ημιν 

ο λόγο? : €)(^οντ€[? ουν ap\iep€a μ^γαν δΐ€ 
go ληλνθοτα του[? ουρανού? Ιν τον υιον τον θυ 

κρατωμίν τη? [ομολογία? ου γαρ ζγρμζν αρχ^ι 

pea μη δυναμ[ζνον συνπαθησαι ται? ασθ^ 

νζΐα[ι\? ημών [π€πιρασμ€νον δ€ κατά πάντα 

καθ ομοιότητα [χωρι? αμαρτία? προσ•€ρχωμ€ 
95 θα ουν μ€τα [παρρησία? τω θρονω τη? γαριτο? 

[ιν]α λαβωμζ[ν eXeoy και χάριν ζνρωμίν €ΐ? ξυ 

[και]ρον βοηθ[€ΐαν πα? γαρ αρχι^ρβυ? €ξ ανθρω 

[πω]ν λαμβα[νομ€νο? νπ€ρ ανθρώπων κα 

[θι]στατα[ι τα προ? τον θν ινα πρόσφορη δώρα 
100 [και θυ]σια? υ[π€ρ αμαρτιών μετριοπαθών δυ 

ναμ^νο? τοι? α[γνοουσι και πλανωμενοι? €π€ί 


καί αυτο9 nep[LKCiTai aaOev^iav και St αυτήν 
οφιλζΐ καΘω[9 π€ρι του λάου ουτω^ και nepL €αυ 
του προσφ€ρ[ζΐν π^ρι αμαρτιών και ουχ^ € 
Ι05 αυτω tis λαμβ[αν€ΐ την τιμήν άλλα καλούμα 

VOS ϋπο του [θυ ουτω^ και ο Xy ουχ^ εαυτόν ΐδο 
ξασ€ν γ€νη[6ηναι αρχ^ΐ€ρ€α αλλ ο λαλησα9 

13 columns lost. 

Col. V. 

[προσφέρονται το]τζ €ΐρη[κ€ν ι]δου η[κω του ποιησαι το χ. 8 

Ι ΙΟ [βζλημα σου] : avaipei το [πρωτ]ον ϊνα [το δ^υτΐρον στη 

[ση ev ω Θ€]ληματί ηγιασμξν[ο]ι €σμ[€ν δια τη? προσ 

[φορά? του σω]ματο? Ιυ Χ[υ] ίφαπαξ : [και πα? μ^ν ΐ€ 

[ρ€υ? €στη]κ€ν καθ ημ^ραν λιτου[ργων και τα? αυτά? 

[πολλακι?] προσφ€ρω[ν] θυσία? aiTive? ου[δ€ποτ€ 

115 [δύνανται] πβρίξλίΐν αμαρτιαν : ουτο? δξ [μιαν υ 
[π€ρ αμαρτιών] προσΐν^νκα? θυσιαν ei? το διη[ν€Κ€? 
[€καθισ€ν €v δβξια] του θυ το λοιπόν (κδ€)(ο[μξνο? 
[ζω? τζθωσιν] οι ζγθροι ϋποποδιον των ποδ{ι\ω[ν αυτού 
[μια γαρ προσ]φορα rereXeico/cei/ η? το διην€Κ€[? του? 

120 [αγιαζομ€ν]ου? : μαρτυρεί δξ ημβιν και τ[ο πνα 

[το αγίον μ€τ]α γαρ το ξίρηκ^ναι αυτή δξ η δια[θηκη 
[ην διαθησο]μαι προ? αυτού? μξτα τα? ημ€ρ[α? €κι 
[να? Aeyei κ]? διδου? νομού? μου €πι καρδια[? αυτώ 
[και €7Γί τη]ν διανοιαν αυτών [[α]] ζπιγραψω αν[του? 

125 ['^** '"^'^ αμ]αρτιων και [τ]ων ανομιών αυτών ου μι 
[μνησθησο]μαι €τι : οπού δβ αφίσι? του[τ]ων ουκ 
[€τι προσφο]ρα πΐρι αμαρτιαι? : ζγοντΐ? ουν αδ^λ 
[φοι παρρ]ησιαν €ΐ? την €ΐσοδον των άγιων ev τω 
[αιματι Ι]υ ην €ν€Κ€νισ€ν ημιν οδον προσ 

130 [φατο]ν και ζωσαν δια του καταπ^τασματο? 

[τουτ] ζστιν τη? σαρκο? αυτού : και lepea μ^γαν 
[ζπι] τον οίκον του θυ προσ^ργωμ^θα //era 


Col. vi 

πο[σω δοκ€ίΤ€ χαρονο^ αξιωθησ€ταί τιμωρίας ο τον χ. 29 

ν[ιον] τ[ο]υ [θυ καταπάτησα? και το αίμα τη? διαθήκη? 

135 κοινον 7][γησομζνο? €v ω ηγιασθη και το ττνα τη? χα 
ριτο? €νυ[βρισα? οιδαμ^ν γαρ τον ζίττοντα €μοι ίκ 
Βικησι? €γ[οΰ ανταποδώσω και πάλιν κρίνει κ? τον 
λαον αντο[ν φοββρον το ψπ€σ€ΐν €ΐ? χίίρα? θυ 
ζωντο? : [αναμιμνησκΐσθζ δ€ τα? προτβρον ημ€ 

Ι40 ρα? €v α[ι? φωτισθ(ντ€? πολλην αθλησιν νπ€μ€ΐνατ€ 
παθημ[ατων τούτο μ€ν ονβιδισμοι? τ€ και θλιψζσιν 

Col. νϋ. 


[θ€α]τριζομ€νοι : τοντο δ^ κοινων[ο]ι των ούτω? χ. ^'^ 

[ανα]στρ€φο μίνων γξνηθίντί? : και γαρ τοι? δ€σ 

145 [μίοι]? σνν€παθησατ€ : και την αρπαγην των νπαρ 
[χον]των υμών μ€τα χαρά? προσζδζξασθ[€] : γινωσ 
[κο]ντ€? (χιν ζαυτου? κρισσωνα ϋπαρξιν και μίν[ο]υ 
[σαν] : μη αποβαλητξ. ουν την παρρησιαν υμών 
[ητ]ι? €χ€ΐ μ^γαλην μισθαποδοσιαν υπομονή? 

Ι50 [γαρ] ζχ^ται χρζίαν ϊνα το θέλημα του [θ]υ ποιησαντί? 
[κο]μΐσησθ€ την €παγγ€λ€ΐαν : €τ[ι] μικρόν όσον : 
[οσο]ν ο €ρχομ€νο? ηξίΐ και ου χρονίσει ο δξ δίκαιο? 
[€κ] πιστίω? ζησ^ται : και ίαν υποστ€ΐ\ηται : [ο]υκ &J 
[δοκ]ζΐ μου η ψυχή ev αυτω : ημι? δζ ουκ ζσμ^ν \υ]ποστο 

155 [λη]? €ίί απωΧζίαν : άλλα πιστ^ω? €ΐ? π€ριποι[η]σίν ψυ 
[χη]? : ΐο-τι δξ πιστι? ίλπιζομ^νων πραγματ[ω]ν αποστα 
[σι?] ίλ{λ\€νχο? ου βλ^πομίνων : (V αυτή γαρ αμάρτυρη 
[θησ]αν οι πρεσβύτεροι ; πιστι νοουμεν κατηρτ€ΐσθαι 


[του]? αιώνα? ρηματι θυ €ΐ? το μη €Κ ^[[eJji'O/iei'Cui/ το 
1 6ο [βλ](πομ(νον γεγονίναι : πειστεί πλείονα θυσιαν Αβε[λ 


πάρα Kaeiv ττροσηνζν Κΐν St ης ζμαρτνρηθη eivai 8[c 
[κ]αιος μαρτνρονντοζ em Τ019 δωροις αντω του θυ και δ[ι αν 
της αποθανών €τι λαλΐΐ : πιστ€ΐ Ενω-^ /i€r€T€^[t/] του [μη 
i'Seiv θάνατον και ονχ ζυρισκ^το διοτί μ€Τξθηκ€ν α[υτον 
165 ο θ? : προ γαρ της μζταθίσξως μβμαρτνρηται €νηρ[€στηκ€ 

Col. viii. 

ναι τω θω [χωρίς 5e πιστ€ως αδύνατον ίναρεστησαι χί. ^ 

πιστΐυσαι γ[αρ δβι τον προσ^ργομ^νον θω οτι €στιν 
και τοις ζη[τονσίν αυτόν μισθαποδοτης γίνεται πιστΐΐ 

I'jo χρηματι[σθίΐς Νωζ π^ρι των μηδ^πω βλξπομξνων 
€ν\αβηθ€[ις κατ€σκ€υασζν κιβωτον €ΐς σωτηριαν του 
οίκον αυτού [δι ης κατ€κριν€ν τον κοσμον και της κατά 
πισ[τι]ν δικα[ιοσυνης cyevcTO κληρονόμος πιστΐΐ κάλου 
μ€νος Αβραα[μ νπηκουσ^ν ζ^ζλθ^ιν €ΐς τόπον ον ημίλ 

175 λ^^ λαμβαν[€ΐν €ΐς κληρονομιαν και βξηλθίν μη €πι 
σταμξνος π[ου ζργ^ται πιστοί παρωκησ^ν βις γην της 
€παγγ€λιας [ως αλλοτριαν ev σκηναις κατοικησας μ^τα 
Ισακ και Ιακ[ωβ των συνκληρονομων της €παγγ€λιας της 
αυτής : €ξ[€δ€\€το γαρ την τους θ^μίλιους ζγονσαν πο 

1 8ο λίΐ' : ης τί')(ν[ιτης και δημιουργός ο θς πιστΐΐ και αυτής 
αρρα δυναμ[ιν €ΐς καταβολην σπέρματος ζλαβζν και πα 
ρα καιρόν ηλ[ικιας ΐπ^ι πιστον ηγησατο τον ζπαγγ€ΐλαμξ 
νον διο και [αφ €νος €γ(ννηθησαν και ταύτα ν€ν€κρω 
μ^νου : κα[6ως τα άστρα τον ονρανον τω πληθίΐ και 

ι85 ως η άμμος η [πάρα το \€ΐλος της θαλάσσης η αναρίθμητος 
κατά πιστιν α[π(θανον ούτοι παντός μη κομισαμζνοι τας 
[e]7rayyeX€ta[s άλλα πορρωθίν αυτας ιδοντ^ς και ασ 
[π]ασαμ€νοι κ[αι ομολογησαντ^ς οτι ζ(νοι και παρεπίδημοι 
[€]ίσίΐ' €πι της [γης 

Ι column lost. 


Col. ix. 

190 iC 

[πρωτότοκα θίγη α]ντωι/ ; πιστΐί Βίφησαν την Ερυθραν χΐ. a8 

[θάλασσαν ω? 8ία ζηρ]α9 γη? : '^[s'] π€ΐραν λαβοντ€9 οι Αιγυ 

[jTTLOt κατζΤΓοθησαν] πιστίί τα τίχτ; Ι^ριγω €π€σαν κύκλω 

[θζντα CTTi €7Γτα ημξρα]? : πίστα Ρααβ η πόρνη ου σνναπω 

195 [^^το Tots απιθησασιν] δίξαμ^νη tovs κατάσκοπου? /xer 

[ζίρηνη? και τι €τι λ€]γω €πιλιψζΐ γαρ μζ διηγουμ^νον ο -^ρο 
\νο? π€ρι Τζδ^ων Βαρ]ακ ^αμψω Ιβφθα€ Δαυ^ώ' τ€ και Σαμουήλ 
[και των προφητών] οι δια πιστ€ω? κατηγωνισαντο βασιλεία? 
[ηργασαντο δικαίοσυ]νην : ^π^τυγον απαγγελιών [:] αφρα 

200 [^αν στόματα λαον^'^ων : €σβ€σαν δυναμιν πύρο? [:] €φυ 
[γον στόματα μαχ^αιρη? : ζδυναμωθησαν απο ασθαναι 
[ay ζγξνηθησαν ισ]χνροι e/x πολαμω παραμβολα? e/cXet 
[ναν αλλότριων ίλ]αβον γυν€κα[. .] e^ αναστασαω? του? 
[νξκρον? αυτών α]λλοι δ€ €τοιμ[πα]νισθησαν ου προσδξξα 

205 [μ^νοι την απολυτ]ρωσιν ίνα κρζίττονο? αναστασαω? 
[τυχωσιν eTepoi δβ] αμπβγμων και μαστίίγων παιραν 
[ζλαβον €τι δξ δ€σμ]ων και φυλακή? : αλιθασθησαν 
[ίπρισθησαν €]πι[ρα]σθησαν : ei/ φονω μαγαιρα? α 
[πζθανον π€ρ]ιη[λ]θον ev μηλωται? ev άγιοι? δαρμα 

2 ΙΟ [σιν υστΐρουμξνοι] θλαιβομανοι : κακουγουμανοι 

[ων ουκ ην άξιο?] ο [κοασμό? : απι αρημίΐαι? πλανωμζ 
[νοι και ορζσι και σ]πηλ€οι? και ται? οπαι? τη? γη? : και 
[ούτοι παντ€? μαρτυρη6ζ]ντ€? δια τη? πιστ€ω? ουκ €κομι 
[σαντο την 6π]αγγ6[λ]€ίαι/ του θυ π€ρι ημών κριττον 

215 [τι προβλ€ψα]μ€νου 'ίνα μη \ωρι? ημών Τ€λ€ίω^ωσ[Γ] 
[τοιγαρουν και] ημίΐ? τοσούτον ίχ^οντζ? πίρικιμανον 

Col. χ. 

ημ[ιν ν]€φο? μαρ{τ]υρων ογκον : αποθ[(μ€νοι] πάντα και χϋ. j 

τη[ν (υπ]ζριστατον αμαρτίίαν δι υπομονή? τραγωμίν τδ 


220 π[ροκ^ιμΥνον ημπν αγώνα αφορωντ€9 €is τον τη? πίστεως 
αρχτ)γον και τ€λ€ΐωτην Ιν 09 αντί της προκειμένης αντω ^α 
pas νπζμ€ίν€ν τον σταυρόν αισχύνης καταφρόνησα? ev 
Se^ia τ€ [τ]ον Θρόνου του θυ κβκαΘί[κ]€ν : αναλογισασθαι γαρ 
τοιαυτην ϋπομξμβνηκοτα νττο των αμαρτωλών. €ΐς αυ 

2 25 '^owy αντίλογιαν ϊνα μη καμητ€ ταις ψυχαις ξκλελυμζ 
VOL : ουττω μέχρι αίματος αντικατεστητε προς την α 
μαρτιαν αγων[ι]ζομενοι και εκλελησθαι της παρακλησεως 
ήτις ϋμειν ως ϋιοις διαλέγεται ϋιε μου μη ολιγωρεί παιδει 
ας κϋ και μη εγλυου υπ αυτού ελεγχόμενος : ον γαρ α 

230 γαπα κς πεδευει μαστειγοι δε πάντα ϋιον ον παραδεχετα[ι 
εις παιδειαν υπομ[ε]νεται ως ϋ[ι]οις ϋμειν προσφέρεται 
ο θς τις γαρ ϋως ον ου πεδευει πατήρ ει δε χωρίς [εστ]αι 
παιδείας ης μέτοχοι γεγονασι πάντες : αρα νο[θοι και] ουκ 
ϋιοι εστε : είτα τους μεν της σαρκός ημών π[ατλ^ερα[ς ε]ιχο 
235 Ι^^ν παιδευτας και ενετρεπομεθα : ου πολύ δε μαλ 

λον ύποταγησομεθα τω πατρι των πνευμάτων και ζη 
σομεν : οι μεν γαρ προς ολίγας ημέρας κατά το δοκού 
αυτοις επαιδευον : ο δε επι το συμφέρον εις το μετά 
λαβείν της αγιότατης αυτού : πάσα δε παιδεία προ{ς) μεν το 

240 παρόν ου δοκει χαράς είναι άλλα λύπης ύστερον δε καρ 
πον ειρηνικον τοις δι αυτής γεγυμνασμενοις αποδιδω[σϊ 

Col. xi. 

δικ[αιοσυνης διο τας παρειμενας χείρας και τα παραλελυμε χϋ. 1 1 
να [γόνατα ανορθώσατε και τροχιάς ορθας ποιείτε τοις 

245 ΊΓοΙσιν υμών ινα μη το χωλον εκτραπη ιαθη δε μάλλον 
€ΐρ[ηνην διώκετε μετά πάντων και τον αγιασμον ου χωρίς 
ου[δεις οψεται τον κν επισκοπουντες μη τις υστέρων απο της 
χα[ριτος του θυ μη τις ρίζα πικρίας ανω φυουσα ενοχλη 
κα[ι δι αυτής μιανθωσιν οι πολλοί μη τις πόρνος η βέβηλος 

250 ως [Ησαυ ος αντί βρωσεως μιας απεδοτο τα πρωτοτοκια αυτού ισ 


T€ [γαρ ΟΤΙ και /xereTretra Θ^Χων κληρονομησαι την (υλογι 

αν [ 

14- ΐ{ησον)ν: so t^ABCD, &C., W-H.; Χριστοί Ιησουν EKL, &C., T-R. 

15. €v τω οίκω : SO Β ; ev ολω τω οίκω t^ACDE, &c., T-R., W-H. ολω may have come 
in from verse 5. 

16. δοξη: ovTos : so KLM, &c., T-R. ; ovtos δόξης t^ABCDE, &c., W-H. 
19. nauTu : so ^5ABCDKIVI, &c., W-H.; τα π. EL, &c., T-R. 

23. €ai> : so t^BDE, &c., W-H.; tavnep AC, &c., T-R. κ of κανχη[μα has been altered 
apparently from χ. 

24. ΐλπιδος κατασχωμΐν : SO Β; βλττ. μ(χρι TeXovs βιβαιαν κατασχ. i^ACDE, &C., T-R., 

W-H. The phrase μίχρι TeXous βφαιαν κατασχωμΐν recurs in verse 14 and may have come 
in here from that passage. 

3 1 . προσωκθασα : 1. προσώχθισα ; the θ has been altered from τ. 

32. €v τη κάρδια αντων διο : τη κάρδια αντοι δΐ ]\ISS. 

36-40. The position of the narrow strip placed near the beginning of these lines is 
uncertain, but it suits very well here. The recto being blank does not help to decide the 

37. πα[ρα\άΚΐσατ( is another otherwise unattested reading: παρακαλ(ΐτί MSS. 

38. α[χ]ρΐ: so Μ ; αχρις Other MSS., T-R., W-H. 

39. Tis €]ξ υμών Ι SO t^AC, &C., T-R., W-H. ; tξ νμων Tis BDE, &C. 1. αμαρτίας. 

42. A double point may be lost after σχωμΐν. 

51. ηδννασθησαν: ηδυνηθησαν MSS. The form ηδυνάσθην occurs e.g. in Matt. xvii. 16 
(B), Mark vii. 24 (NB). 

The first e of etfff[Xl^et»' is written over a double point. 

58. συνκΐκΐρασμΐνους : SO ABCD, &C., W-H. in text ; συνκΐΚΐρασμΐνος t^, W-H. mg., 
σνγκίκραμίρος T-R. 

59. yap : SO BDE, &c. ; ow i>5AC. 

60. την was certainly omitted before καταπα]νσιν as in BD ; την is found in other MSS. 
and is read by W-H. and T-R. 

6^. που: yap ττον T-R., W-H. with all MSS. except io9lat. which agrees with the 
papyrus in omitting yap. 

64. κα[τ€]πανσ(5 is a mistake for Ka^^re\avafv. 

66. (ΐσ(λίυ[σο]νται : SO D and some cursives; ei eiafXfvaovrai other MSS., T-R., W-H. 

70-1• The vestiges of [κα''θ[ω'^ are very slight, but are a sufficient indication that the 
papyrus read προ(φηται with i^ACDE, &c., W-H., rather than αρηται (correctors of DE, 
KL, T-R.), since the division κα\θως does not account for the traces of ink at the end 
of 1. 70. 

80. σ of ΐΓ(ση was converted from r. 

81. (ν,ργης: SO t^ACDE, &C., T-R., W-H. ; ΐvapyης B. 
85. ΐν^υων is for ΐν^νοιων. 

96. It is almost certain that the papyrus read €υρωμ€ΐ/, since without this word the line 
would be unaccountably short ; Β stands alone in omitting it. 

99. The line is sufiiciently long without re after δώρα (om. Β and an early corrector of 
D), and in view of the tendency of the papyrus the omission is probable. 

106. όντως, κ.τ.λ. : the I\ISS. here have καθωσπ(ρ (t^ABD) or καθαπ^ρ και (om. «cat CD) 
Ααρών ουτωί, κ.τ.λ., but there is evidently not room for all this in the papyrus. The only 


other authority for any omission here is K, which leaves out ούτως και ο Χρίστος] but even 
without these words the Hne would remain rather too long. To omit καθωσπ^ρ και Ααρών 
suits the space better and does not damage the sense. 

112. The papyrus may of course have read αι]ματος (DE) for σω]ιιατο! and apxiepevs 
(AC) for tepeuf (t^DEKL). 

115. αμαρτιαν : a/iaprtac MSS. 

116. The second v, if it be v, in npoaevevKas was converted from ι or v. The previous 
V also seems to have been altered. 

118. (χθροι: (χθροι αυτού MSS. The Superfluous ι in πο8ιω[ν was a slip due to the 
preceding νποπο8ιον. 

124• The scribe apparently began to write avrovs before (πι-γρα^^ω, but that the α was 
meant to be deleted is not certain and its partial effacement may be accidental. 

125. αμ\αρτιων'. SO D and some cursives; αμαρτιών αυτών T-R., W-H., with other MSS. 

125—6. μι\^μνησθη(Τθ^μαι '. 1. μη [μνησθησο^μαι. 

127. αμαρτιαις : αμαρτίας MSS. The second e οί ίχοντΐς has been altered from a. 

139. τας πρητΐρον ημ^^ρας : SO T-R., W-H., with mOSt MSS. J τας πρ. αμαρτίας ik, ταις 
ττροτίραις ημ^ραις D. 

ΐ44• Se(r[pot]s: SO AD, W-H. ; 8ΐσμοις μου t^EHKL, &c., T-R. We cannot of course 
be sure that the papyrus did not have δΐσμοις, but the absence of μου is the important thing 
and is much in favour of δίσμιοις. 

147. «avrovy: so ^5A, W-H. ; εαυτοις DE, &c., fV ίηυτοΐς T-R. With a few minuscules. 

κρισσωνα = κρύσσονα : SO $^A, W-H. ; κρΐίττονα DE, &C., T-R. 
νπαρξιν : SO l^AD, W-H. ; νπ. ev ουρανοις Ε, &C., T-R. 

151. There is an apparently accidental diagonal dash passing from the top of the 
supposed μ through the t. 

er[t] : fTi γαρ MSS. 

152. xpoviaei: SO ^iD, W-H.; χρονκι AE, &c., T-R. 

152-3. The papyrus certainly agreed with DE, &c., in omitting μου, which is found in 

t^A after δίκαιος. δίκαιος [μου] W-H., δίκαιος T-R. 

153. ΤΓΐστ(ως '. ττιστΐως μου D. 

1 54• MW η ψνχη : so DE; η ψ. μου T-R., W-H., with other MSS. 

156. ττραγματ[ω]ν αποστα[σις^ (1. ί7ΓΟσΓα[σΐί]) is the reverse Order to that of all the MSS.; 

πραγμάτων is usually connected with βλίπομινων. 

157. αυτή : SO two cursives (47, 115) ; tv ταύτη Other MSS., T-H,, W-H. 

159-60. TO [βλ](πομ(νον : SO i^ADE, W-H.; τα βλίπομενα KL, &C., T-R. 

161. προσηνΐνκΐν '. 7τροσην(γκ(ν τω θβω MSS. 

162. αυτω του θ[€ο)υ: αυτού was Originally written but was altered to αυτω. αυτού τω 
θ(ω i^AD, αυτού του θ^ου EK.L, &C., T-R., W-H. 

163. l^aXei: SO ^k, W-H., T-R. ; \α\ηται DE, &C. 

164. (υρισκίτο: SO KL, &C., T-R.; ηυρισκΐτο t^ADE, W-H. 

165. {υηρ[ΐσΎηκ€]ναι : SO ^^DE ; ίυαρ. AKL, W-H., T-R. l[ fυηpeσ■τηκfvaι was correctly 
written this line was somewhat longer than those preceding. 

168. β{()ω: so t^; the papyrus may of course have had τω ^(ί)ω like ADE, &c. (so 
T-R., W-H.), but in view of its tendency to shortness this is less probable. 

169. ζη[τουσιν: SO Ρ Only; βκζητουσιν Other MSS., T-R., W-H. 
175, \αμβαι^€ΐν €ΐς κλ. : the USUal reading ; κλ. λαμβάνειν i^. 

178. Ισακ is also the spelling of D; ίσαακ other MSS., T-R., W-H. 

1 80-1. αυτής | appa is for αυτή Σαρρα. The papyrus agreed with ΝΑΕ, &c., in omitting 
στ€ΐρα or στηρα ούσα which is found after Σαρρα (or after δυναμιν' or fXajSev) in D and 
other MSS. 


182. It is practically certain that the papyrus did not read (τΐκΐν after ηΚικιας with EKL 
and other MSS. (so T-R.). It is omitted in h?AD, W-H. 

185. ως η: SO all the best MSS. ; ωσα T-R. with a few minuscules. 

186. Considerations of space make κομισαμΐνοί {^, &c., W-H.) preferable to λαβοντα 
(DE, &c., T-R.). 

187. The papyrus evidently omitted και neiaeevres which is found in some minuscules 
and read in the T-R. 

188. This line is rather long, and the papyrus may have had πάροικοι for παρΐπώημοι, 
as P. 

192. ξηρ\ας -γης : SO b^ADE, W-H. ; Om. yηί KL, &c., T-R. 

193. έπεσαι/: SO t^AD, W-H ; €πεσ6 EKL, T-R. 

194. πόρνη; en ϊΚ(•γομΐνη πόρνη ^. 

196. yap με : SO EKL, &C., T-R.; με γαρ t^AD, W-H. 

197. The papyrus agrees with t^A (so W-H.) in the omission of conjunctions between 
the names as far as Αανειδ. Β. τε κα\ Σ. κα\ Ί. T-R. with other MSS. The spelling Έαμψω 
is attested as a variant by D. The ε of Ααυεώ was originally omitted ; Ααυεώ i^D, W-H., 
Δαυίδ, Δαδ, and Ααβώ (T-R.) Other MSS. 

201. μαχ]αιρη5: SO i^AD, W-H.; μάχαιρας Other MSS., T-R. But the papyrus is 
inconsistent and has μαχαφας in 1. 208. 

ε8νναμωθησαν : i^AD, W-H. ; ενε8υναμωθησαν EKL, &C., T-R. 

203. The size of the lacuna is inconclusive as to whether the papyrus read γυνεκα[ς] 

(t^AD) or γννεκα[ις], i.e. γυναίκες (EKL, &C., T-R., W-H.). 

208. [επρισθησαν ε]πι[ρα]σθησαν : this is also the order of AE, &C., and T-R. ; επειρ. επρ. 

t^D, &c., W-H. 

μάχαιρας: cf. 1. 20I, note. 

211. επι: SO «A, W-H.; εν DE, &c., T-R. 

2 1 6. τοσούτον : t^ τηΧικουτον. 

222. τον σταυρόν: SO D; om. τον Other MSS., T-R., W-H. 

223. κεκαθι[κ]εν: SO the uncials, W-H.; εκάθισεν T-R. with some minuscules. 

224. The papyrus agrees with D in omitting τον Avhich is read before τοιαυτην in other 
MSS. and by T-R., W-H. 

αυτούς: SO a corrector of t^; εαυτούς t^DE, W-H., εαυτόν A, αυτόν KL, T-R. 

225. εκλελυμενοι: SO D ; εκλυόμενοι other MSS., T-R., W-H. 

226. μέχρι: SO D; μέχρις Other MSS., T-R., W-H. 

227. αγων^ιΐζομενοι : ανταγωνιζόμενοι MSS. 
229. και μη : μ?;δΕ MSS. 

231. "ϊ : SO most MSS., W-H.; et T-R. with a few minuscules. 

232. τις γαρ: SO biA, W-H.; τις γαρ εστίν DE, &C., T-R. 

233-4. και ουχ νιοι εστε is also the Order of t^AD, W-H. ; εστε κ. ο. VI. KL, &c., T-R. 
235. τΓολυ 8ε: 8ε is also attested as a variant by D and was added by the third 
corrector of t^; πολύ t^AD, W-H., πολλω KL, &c., T-R. 

239. αγιότατης is a graphical error for αγωτητος. πάσα 8ε is the reading of AKL, &c., 

T-R ; πάσα μεν i^, &C., W-H. 

241. The e of ειρηνικον has apparently been corrected and the η of αυτής was altered 
from ο or ot, which perhaps reflects the variant 81 αυτοις recorded in D ; but it may well 
have been a mere slip. 



658. Certificate of Pagan Sacrifice. 
15-5 X 7 <:m. 

An interesting survival of the Decian persecution of the Christians in 
A. D. 350 is preserved in this papyrus, which is an example of the libelli or 
declarations which suspects were compelled to make that they had sacrificed 
to the pagan gods. Two only of these libelli have hitherto been published, one 
at Berlin (B. G. U. 387 : Krebs, Sitzungsb. Bert. Akad. 1893 ; Harnack, Theol 
Literaturz. 1894, p. 38), the other at Vienna (Wessely, Sitzungsb. Wien. Akad. 
1894; Harnack, Theol. Literaturz. 1894, p. 163). Both of those documents were 
from the Fayum ; the present specimen, though from another nome, has the 
same characteristic phrases, which were evidently a stereotyped formula, and 
confirms in all respects the emendations and deductions proposed by Harnack 
in connexion with the Berlin papyrus. Like them also it is addressed to a 
commission which was specially appointed to conduct the inquisition against 
the Christians. 

ΤοΓί hfi των Upcov [και 
θυσιών 7ΓΟλ[€0)$• 

Trap Αυρηλίου A[ 

θίωνο9 Θξο8ώρου μη[τροί 
5 Παντωνυμίδος άπο Tfj[9 
αύτήί πόλεοΰί. del μ\ν 
θύων και σπίνδων \τοΐ\^ 
θΐθΪ9 [8]ΐξτίλ[(σα e]Tt §€ 
καΐ νυν ίνώπιον ύμων 
ΙΟ κατά τα Κ€λ€υσθ[ί]ν[τα 
€σπ€ΐσα και ίθυσα κα\1 
των iepcov ίγξυσάμην 

άμα τω υΐω μου Αύρη- 

λίω Διοσκόρω κα\ Tfj 
15 θυγατρί μου Αύρηλία 

Ααίδι. άξιω υμάς ύπο- 

σημιώσασθαι μοι, 

{€του9) α Αύτοκράτοροί Καίσαρος 

Γαιου Μίσσίου Κυίντον 
2θ Τραϊανού Αΐκίον 

Εύσ€βου[9 Εύ]τυ\οΰί 

[^€βασ]τοΰ [Παΰ]νι κ. 

[ Κ ) [ 

Ι. Ίίρων Pap.; so in 1. 12. 
the line. 19. ydiov Pap. 

12. (γΐνσαμη Pap. 
20. Τραϊανού Pap. 

16. λαϊδί Pap. ο of vTTo above 

* To the superintendents of offerings and sacrifices at the city from Aurelius . . . - 
thion son of Theodorus and Pantonymis, of the said city. It has ever been my custom 
to make sacrifices and libations to the gods, and now also I have in your presence in 
accordance with the command poured libations and sacrificed and tasted the offerings 
together with my son Aurelius Dioscorus and my daughter Aurelia Lais. I therefore 


request you to certify my statement. The ist year of the Emperor Caesar Gaius Messius 
Quintus Trajanus Decius Pius Felix Augustus, Pauni 20.' 

1-2. The Berlin and Vienna libelli are addressed τοις eVi των θυσιών ]βρημ€νοκ, omitting 

6. del μίν is written in the original rather below the line and there are traces of ink 
over aei, SO there seems to have been some correction. 

13-4. rfi θυγατρί: women were clearly included in the Decian Edict ; cf. the Vienna 
libellus, which is from two men with their wives, and the 5th Edict of Maximin (Euseb. 

de Mart, Pol. ix. 2), quoted by Harnack, παν8ημ(\ πάντας avSpas αμα yvvai^l και οΐκίταις 
και avTois ίπομαζίοις παισι θΰΐΐν και anevdeiu, κ.τ.λ, 

23- Α signature begins at this line, though whether it is that of the sender of the 
declaration or of an official is doubtful. The stroke above the supposed ν which we have 
taken to represent an abbreviation may be only part of a long paragraphus below 
the date. 


659. Pindar, IlapeiveLov and Ode. 

12-8 X 49 cm. Plates III, IV. 

Fragments of a roll containing parts of at least five columns of lyric poetry 
in Pindaric dialect, written in good-sized round uncials, which we assign to the 
latter half of the first century B.C. Occasional accents, breathings, and stops 
(high and middle point) have been added by the original scribe, who has also 
made a few corrections of his work ; the text, however, was not left in a very 
perfect condition, and several alterations are necessary on metrical and other 
grounds. The first three columns, but for the loss of a few lines at the beginning 
of each, are in good condition ; the fourth becomes more fragmentary, while 
Col. V, which probably succeeded immediately and to which the majority of the 
small unplaced pieces appear to belong, is hopelessly broken. The position of 
these is to some extent fixed by the fact that the verso of Cols, i-iii was utilized 
for a collection of epigrams (662) ; for since the verso of most of the scraps 
is blank, they must be placed later than the upper half of the third column. 

Although the Pindaric authorship of these new poems is not definitely 
established by the coincidence of any part of them with already extant frag- 
ments, their style and diction leave little room for doubt as to the identity 
of the poet. It is therefore a piece of great good fortune that the second at 


any rate of the two odes comprised by the papyrus (11. 31 sqq.) belongs to 
a class hitherto practically unrepresented in what survives of Pindar's works. 
This poem was composed in honour of Aeoladas (1. 29) the father of the 
Pagondas (1. 30) who commanded the Thebans at the battle of Delium 
(Thucyd. iv. 91-6), and his praises are put in the mouth of a maiden (II. 26, 
46, &c.) — a circumstance which at first led us to suppose that the writer was 
a woman. But Blass, to whom we are especially indebted in connexion with 
this papyrus, is clearly right in regarding the piece as one of the ΙΙαρθίναα, or 
choruses for girls, which figure in the lists of Pindar's works, and are exemplified 
in a few meagre quotations (among which is perhaps to be reckoned 221. vii. 
6- 1 a). Can the poem be characterized still more closely? In near relation to 
the Παρθ4ν€ΐα there stood a series known as Ααφνηφορικά, so called because the 
singers bore branches of laurel. The catalogue of Pindar's works as given 
by Suidas distinguishes the Ila/a^eVeia from the Ααφνηφορικά, while the list given 
in the Codex Ambrosianus, which is usually recognized as the superior authority, 
does not mention the latter class, and apparently includes it in the Ώαρθένζία ; 
cf. Proclus, Chrest. ap. Phot., Bibl. 239 Y\apQ. oU καΐ τά δαφνηφορικα ώ? ciy yivos 
TTLTTTei. It is then quite possible that in the present poem the rather prominent 
allusions to bάφvη (11. 37-8, y^), in one of which the speaker actually describes 
herself as carrying a laurel branch, may possess a special significance. On the 
other hand there is here no sign of the religious character which seems to have 
belonged to the Ααφνηφορίκά (cf. Proclus, ibid.) ; Pindar is indeed said in the 
Vita Amhrosiana to have dedicated one of these poems to his son Daiphantus, 
but the circumstances are unknown. For the present, therefore, it is sufficient 
to call attention to these references, and to assign the ode provisionally to the 
more comprehensive class of the XiapQkvua, or possibly to the κίχωρισμ^να των 
Τ1αρθ€ν€ίων mentioned in the Ambrosian list and elsewhere. The obscurity of 
the latter category might have the advantage of covering the other poem 
partially preserved in the papyrus, which was also in honour of Aeoladas (1. 12), 
but, as is shown by the occurrence of a masculine participle (1. 11), was not 
designed for a female chorus. No doubt if both pieces were Ααφνηφορίκά, the 
difference of sex would cause no difficulty ; but in the absence of further 
allusions to bάφvη such an assumption has little to commend it. Perhaps this 
ode was an Ιγκώμιον or simply Epinician in character, and the juxtaposition of 
the two pieces was merely due to their identity of subject. 

The metre of the IlapOivuov is distinguished, like its language, by an ease 
and simplicity which fully bear out the reputation of this class of Pindar's 
odes; cf. Dionys. Halicarn. Demosth. 39, where after citing the poetry of 
Aeschylus and Pindar as an example of want of connexion, abruptness, and 

Ε 2 


unexpected changes of construction, the critic proceeds χωρΐ? 6τι μη τα YlapOiveia 
καΐ €L TLva TovTOLs δμοίαί άτταιτεϊ κατασκ^νάί' bLaφaίv€τaι hi ns όμοία καν tovtols 
euyeVeia και σίμνότηί αρμονίας τον άρχαΐον φνλάττονσα τιίνύν. Strophes and epodes 
consist alike of five verses having a prevailing choriambic element. The 
scheme is as follows : — 

StropJies. Epodes. 

___^^_V^— ji:^ — V^— I — \J — \J\^— \J — 

— — y_^ ^ — ^ — — — v^^^— — I 

— ^ — v^v^ — v^ — I — — — <u <u — \J — 

— _^v^ — — — — \J ^ — — 

Lines i and 3 in the strophe, i, (2) and 4 in the epode stand in synaphia with 
the lines succeeding ; and a single long syllable before or after a choriambus 
is probably to be regarded as lengthened by ' syncope ' to the extent of an 

additional short syllable, e.g. — ^ <j = L•-\J\.^-J,or-^-\J\J — '^-, 

The commencement of each new strophe is marked in the original by an 
elaborate coronis, and the antistrophes and epodes are commonly denoted in 
the same way by paragraphi, which are, however, sometimes omitted. The 
metrical scheme shows that the number of lines missing at the tops of Cols, 
ill and iv must be either 8 or 2^ — a larger figure is out of the question. 
A loss of 8 lines would give a roll of the likely enough height of about 
30 cm., and is a satisfactory supposition in other respects. Each column 
would accordingly consist of from 28-29 lines, and a lacuna of about 8 or 9 
lines may therefore be postulated at the beginning of the first two columns. 
On this view the remains of the second poem extend to the second verse of 
the eighth strophe, or the 107th line from the commencement ; the numeration 
given in the text below refers only to the lines actually preserved in the papyrus. 
The length of the strophe of the first poem (Col. i and the lost portion 
of Col. ii) is also five verses ; the epode was longer, how much longer depends 
upon the number of lines lost at the top of Col. ii. If it be assumed that no 
space was left between the end of this ode and the commencement of the next, 
as the analogy of the Bacchylides papyrus and 408 would indicate, the epode 
extended to the rather unexpected length of 14 verses ; if on the other hand 
the division was marked by a blank space, this number would be lowered by 
two or three lines. A different figure would of course result from the adoption 
of the hypothesis that the loss in Cols, iii-iv amounts to 23 verses, which would 
bring down the epode of the previous poem to a maximum of 9 lines. 

We append the scheme of the metre : — 

Strophes. Epodes. 


\j \j — ο — — — 

\J \J — KJ — \J ^J — 

~ \j ^ — \j \j — \^ — — I 

— v-»— — v-i — V-» — — 

— — \U \J — KJ \J — 

— \j — — vy— ' — v-( — 

— \J — \J — — 

— — •^ \J — \J \J — \J KJ 

— v^ — — \U — 

- ^ - ^ (= 1. 5•) 

Lines 4-5 in the strophe and 1-3 and 4-5 in the epode are connected by 

Col. i. 


21 letters ] . (p[.] 


]0C[. . . .]0eiAIC€P 


5 J, ΜΑΝΤ!€ωθΤ€Λ€[.]€ω 











. . . οσ . . . . Θζίαις ep- 
. . . δια 
5 μάντι? ώ? Τ€λ6[σ]σω 
UpanoKos' τιμαΐ 
δ\ βροτοίσι κξκριμίναί' 
τταντί ^ inl φθόνος άνδρΐ κείται 
aperds, 6 δ\ μη8\ν €χων ύπο σί- 

ιο γα μ€\αίνα κάρα κίκρνπται. 
φιλίων δ' αν ΐύχοΐμαν 
Κρονίδαις kn Αίολάδα 
καΐ yivcL ^ύτνγίαν τ^τάγβαι 
ομαΧον ^ρονον άθάναται δ\ βροτοΊς 

15 άμ€ραι, σώμα δ' ίστί θνατον. 
αλλ' ωτινι μη λιπ6τ€- 
KVOS σφαΧτ} ττάμπαν oikos βιαί- 
α δαμ€ΐ9 ανάγκα, 
ζώ€ΐ κάματον ττροφνγων άνια- 

2θ ρ6ν, το γ[α]ρ ττριν γ€ν€-\[σθαι 






Col. ii. 




35 vL 




[ ]xpYCorr[ 


[. . .]ΔωΜ[. . .]/\eCHCT[. . . .]Μ€ . [ 

[. . .]ΙΓΑΡΟ[. . .]IAC 

ΑΑΑΑζω CAMe Ν ΑτεπεπΛΟ Ν ω κεω C 











αιψηραο• οποτΑΝτεχείΜωΝοεεθεΝει 




— — — \j \j 

•)(^ρυσοπ[ζΤΓ\ ^ _ ^ _ στρ. α 

— δωμ — W λεστ;? τ yj — μ€ — kj — 

[_ e]t γαρ ό [Ao^jias 

[π]ρ[ό]0ρα)[ι/] άθανάταν χάριν 
25 Θήβαις ξτημίξων. 

άλλα ζωσαμβνα re ττύπλον ώκύως άντ. α 

χβρσίν τ kv μαλακαΐσιν ορπακ άγλαον 

8a<pvas oyioLaa πάν- 

δο^ον Αίολάδα σταθμον 
3θ νιου Τ6 Παγώνδα 

υμνήσω στζψάνοισι θάλ- kir. α 

λοισα τταρθύνιον κάρα, 

σειρήνα δ\ κομπον 

αύλίσκων ύπο λωτίνων 
35 μιμήσομ άοιδαΪ9, 

κβΐνον 09 Ζζφύρον Τ€ σιγάζξί nvoas στρ. β' 

αίψηρά9, οττόταν re χ€ΐμωνο9 σθίνΐί 

φρίσσων Bopeas €πι- 

σπξρχΐ] ττόντου τ ώκύαλον 
4θ [ρ\ιπαν Ιμάλα^^ν Ι καΐ 

Col. iii. 


[ ]ΦεΝ[ 

[ ]ΑεΐΚΜ[.]ζωΝΝΑ[ 

[. . . .]ΑΑΜεΝ[.]ΑπΑΡΟΙΘ[ 

ζεγοο ι ΔεΜεΔεπρεπε ι 


ΓΛωοεΑίτεΛεΓεοθΑΐ • 
ΑΝΔΡοοΔΟΥτεΓΥΝΑί κοεωΝΘΑΛεοει ΝεΝ 

— — — 061/ ^ — ^ — 

— ασ ^ (^ — — 

[πολ]λα μξν [τ]ά πάροιΘ ^ - )^ — ^^ — στρ. y' 
[δ]αίδάλλοΐ9 ίπ^σιν τά ^ α. ^ — κ^ — 
45 Zei)9 οΙδ\ ίμΐ δ€ πρίπζΐ 
παρθίνήϊα μ\ν (fypoveiu 
γλώσσα re λίγ^σθαι. 
άνδρο? ^ οΰτ€ γυναικός ων θάλ^σσιν ey- άντ. γ 







ιππωΝτωκγποΔωΝπο[. .] 
vL ΓΝωτοιοεπίΝίκΑίο' 



6o χΑιτΑΝΟτεΦΑΝοιοέκόο 

ΜΗΘ€Ν• €ΝΤ€πΐ€Αΐπ€Ρΐπ[ ] 

Κ€ΐμαι χρή /i[e] XaOeiu aoiSav πρδσφορον. 
5θ πίστα δ' Άγασικλ{€)€ί 

μάρτυς ήλυθον h \opov 

kaXoTs re yovevaiv 

άμφΐ ττροξξνίαισι τι- €7Γ. γ 

μαθύσιν τα πάλαι τα νυν 
55 "Γ άμφικτιόνζσσιν 

ίππων τ ώκυπόδων πο\Χν-\ 

γνώτοΐ5 ^πι νίκαΐ9, 

ais €V αιδν€σσιν Όγχη[στον κλν]τά9 στρ. δ 

ταΓί 8e ναον Ίτωνία^ <Κη-Φ' €ύκλ€]ά 
6ο χαίταν στίφάνοις ίκοσ- 

μηθ^ν, ίν re Ώίσα π^ρι- 

Col. iv. 


[. .]ΜΝΟΝΑΝ[ 

vL επτΑΠΥΑΟΐα . [ 

6s "τ €ΝΗΚ€ΝΚΑΐεπ€!Τ[ ]Λος 

π[.] . Α€€ΦΙΛΗ[. .]Ν• 
7ο ΔΑ;ν\ΑΙΝΑ€πΑ[.] ...[.. .]ωΐΝΥΝΜΟΐπθΔΙ 
€ΚΗς€ΜΗΔ€ς[. .] . . . ΛΑ[. .] 
ΑΔ€Ρ[. .]ACA[ ] . 

ΜΥΡΐωΝε[ ]ic 

\J — — 

βίζα re 

\σζ\μνον αν KJ \j — KJ — 

— €πταπνλοισι[ν. 
65 evfJK€v και e7reir[a δνσμ€νη9 χ6]λθ9 στρ. e 

τωνδ' ανδρών eVe[/ce]i' μ^ρίμναί σώφρονος 

ίχθραν epiv ου παλιγ- 

γλωσσον άλλα δίκας [δ]ιδούς 

π[ίσ]rάs' (?) €0ίΧ77[σ€]ΐ'. 
70 Δαμαίνας πα[ϊ,] ^ — ν^ ω νυν μοι πόδι άντ. € 

στοίχων άγύο' [τ]ιν γαρ €[ϋ]φρων 'ίψ^ται 

πρώτα θυγάτηρ [ο\δοΰ 

δάφνας ^ύπ^τάλου σχ^δ\ο\ν 

βαίνοισα π^διλοις 
75 αν Ααισιστρότα, αν ίπά- ετ. e 

σκησ€ μήδ€σ[ι — ^ — 

«ft» - U <J 

a ο €ρ . . ασα — — 
μυρίων e ^ — ^ ts 


ψ ΖεΥΞΑ[ ] ζ€ύ^α[σα στρ. 5' 

8οΤΜΗΝΥΝΝ€ΚΤΑ[ JNACGMAC 80 μ^ νυν νίκτα\ρ ί86ντ awb Kpajvas ψαί 

ΔΙτωΝΤ€Α[. ΙΤΤΑΡΑΛΜΥΡΟΝ διψωντ α ν^^_ ν^- nap ά.λμυρ}>ν 

OIXeCXON • €[ ] οΐχεσ-θον e - ν^ - 

Col. ν. 



J . 


■•. L 




— — — Kj^ — PT\J — 


— yj — ^^ \^ — aoav 


— — v^ v^ — — 

] . Ίναρ 

90 yy ^^ — IV ap- 


— — \^ \j — — 


\^ \j — \j vos tC ύστίαν 


_ v^ v^ — w ά]γ\αΐζ€ται 




W (^ 

95 ]AITJ[ 

]ω. [ 

• • • 






ACTei[ ]CTAnAN[ 
105 NAIO[ ] . AIKO . [ 
PA[ . . ' . 







]. NA[ 

"5 ]ATI[ 







120 . [ 


{k) {I) (m) {n) (0) 

l[ ]ΑΙΛ[ 125 [.]OIA[ ] ]OMAj• [ 

π . ' . . νΙΑΘΑ[ ] ]" 

• • • ΤωΤ€[ ]ANAH[ ] 

CHPA[ ]NA . [ ] 

ΑΥΞ€| . [ ... ... 

I30 T[.] . [ 

(p) ω w 

] ]ωκΡ€ο . [ ] . . [ 

]KP . [ ] . MNNAC . [ ]ΔΟΞ[ 

I3S]M0[ ] ΐ4θ]Ν•[ 

. . . ] 

1-4• At the top of this column considerable difficulties arise with regard to the place 
of the two fragments (a) and (3), which appear in this position in Plate III. Fr. {δ) 
especially looks as if it should be put here, for the tops of the letters TIC in the fifth line 
exactly suit μάντις. But the letters on the verso cannot be made to fit in as they should 
with the last lines of the extant epigram of Antipater; cf. note on 662. 18-20. The two 
fragments cannot well be placed higher up, since the column on the verso appears to 
be complete. We are therefore reduced to the alternatives either of supposing that the 
papyrus had new readings in the last three lines of the epigram or that the fragments come 
from a previous column ; they do not belong to a later column because the colour of the 
papyrus and the size of the letters on the verso is inconsistent with Col. ii, and the verso 
of the rest is blank at the top. Neither of these alternatives is satisfactory, but the latter 
is the safer. The question, however, is not of great importance, for the first few lines 
of the column would in any case hardly be capable of restoration without the assistance of 
the metre. 

11. 5-20. ' . . . I will fulfil like a prophet-priest. The honours of mortals are diverse, 
but every man has to bear envy of excellence, while the head of him who has nought 
is hidden in black silence. And in friendly mood would I pray to the children of Cronus 
that prosperity of unbroken duration be decreed for Aeoladas and his race ; the days 
of mortals are deathless, but the body dies. But he whose house is not reft of offspring 
and utterly overthrown, stricken by a violent fate, lives escaping sad distress ; for before . . .' 

7. Κΐκρίμ4ναι'. cf. Nem. vi. 3 δι«'ργ« be πάσα κ^κριμίνα Βνναμκ. 

12. At the end of this line is a TT with a dot or small ο between the two upright 
strokes, like the abbreviation of noKvs or noXis. The surface of the papyrus is damaged 
immediately after the TT and one or two more letters may have followed. It is difficult 


to see what can have been meant, for neither sense nor metre requires any word between 
Αιολαδα and /cat'; cf. 1. 6 1, note. 

13. The di pie-shaped marginal sign which appears in the facsimile opposite this line 
really belongs to 1. 17; the small fragment containing it was wrongly placed when the 
photograph was taken. For another case of the use of an Aristarchean symbol in 
a non-Homeric papyrus cf. 442. 52. 

14-5. The meaning is that, though the individual dies, the race is perpetuated. 

17, There are spots of superfluous ink about the letters ΟΙΚΟ, creating rather the 
appearance of an interlinear insertion in a smaller hand ; Κ was perhaps corrected. Another 
blot occurs above ΚΑΜΑΤΟ Ν in 1. 19. 

21-4. A fresh ode begins at 1. 21, the change being marked in the margin by 
a symbol of which vestiges appear opposite this line and the next. The name of the 
person to whom the poem was dedicated and its occasion may have been added, 
as in the Bacchylides papyrus. The small fragment placed at the top of this column 
and containing parts of 11. 22-4 is suitable both with regard to the recto and the verso 
(cf. 662. 39-40, note), but its position can hardly be accepted as certain. None of 
the remaining fragments can be inserted here, their verso being blank. For [π]ρ[ό]φ/?ω[ΐ'], 
a favourite word of Pindar, cf. e. g. Pyih. v. 1 1 7 Oebs 8e ol το vvv re πρόφρων reXel δύνασιν. 

11. 23-40. 'For Loxias ... of his favour pouring upon Thebes everlasting glory. 
But quickly girding up my robe and bearing in my soft hands a splendid laurel-branch 
I will celebrate the all-glorious dwelling of Aeoladas and his son Pagondas, my maidenly 
head bright with garlands, and to the tune of lotus pipe will imitate in song a siren 
sound of praise, such as hushes the sudden blasts of Zephyrus and, when chilling Boreas 
speeds on in stormy might, calms the ocean's swift rush . . .' 

30. After ΤΤΑΓΟΰΝΔΑ an I seems to have been smeared out, but the appearance of I 
may be merely due to a blot ; cf. note on 1. 17. 

33, afiprjva be κόμπον . , . bs Ζΐφύρον, κ.τ.Χ. : cf. Schol. On Homer, Od. μ. 1 6 8— ρ {γαΧψη 
€π\€Τ0 νηνΐμίη κοίμησΐ 8f κύματα δαίμων) ivrddev 'Yiaiohos και rovs άνεμους OeKynv avras (SC. τας 
Seip^j/as) (φη. 

34• AAICKCON is apparently a mistake for αΰλίσκωΐ' ; cf. 01. iv. 2 ^pai ίπο ποικιΚοφόρμιγγος 
αοώάς ίλισσόμεναι. The initial Λ could equally well be Δ but hardly N, nor does ναίσκων 
give so good a sense. 

37. Μ of ΧείΜωΝΟΟ has been altered from N. 

38-9. φρίσσων Bopeas : zi. Pyth. iv. 8 1 φρίσσοντας ομβρονς which a scholiast explains 
φρΊσσΐΐν noiovvras. eiTICTTePXHC is a mistake for eTTICnePXHI ; cf. for the word Od. e. 304 

ίτάραξ( δε ττόντον, έπισπέρχουσι δ' aeWai. We transpose ωκΰα\ον and πόντου on aCCOUnt 

of the metre though this change does not effect an absolute correspondence, ^v^ — 

taking the place of \j\j — ^—. ώκύάλος ριπή occurs in 0pp. Hal. 2. 535. 

40. The sense seems to require the substitution of ΐμάλαξίν for the €ΤΑΡΑΞ€ of the 
papyrus; cf. Fr. 133 (probably Pindar) of the Adespoia in Bergk, Poet. Lyr. ίπ^ρχόμ^νόν 

T€ μαλάζοντας βίαιον πόντον ώκ(ίας τ άνεμων ριπάς. The displacement of ipaXa^ev by ΐτάραξεν 

would be easy in such a context ; cf. the passage from Od. e quoted in the note on 
11. 38-9. ΚΑΙ belongs to the next line. 

42. The reading of this line is difficult. There is a stroke passing through the 
middle of Κ to I and another above the K, and perhaps this letter or both I and Κ were 
to be cancelled. The facsimile rather suggests that Θ was first written in place of IK, 
but that is deceptive. The doubtful Ζ may be Ξ. The dot which appears above the 
first Ν is very likely the tip of a letter like Ρ or Φ from the line above. 


43-61. * Many are the deeds of old that might be adorned with verse, but the 
knowledge of them is with Zeus ; and for me maidenly thoughts and choice of speech 
are meet. Yet for no man nor woman to whose offspring I am devoted must I forget 
a fitting song, and as a faithful witness have I come to the dance in honour of Agasicles 
and his noble parents, who for their public friendships were held in honour in time past, 
as now, by their neighbours, and for the renowned victories of swift-footed steeds, victories 
which decked their locks with crowns at the banks of famed Onchestus or by Itonia's 
glorious shrine and at Pisa . . .' 

44. Cf. Pindar, Nem. xi. 18 μ(λιγ8ονποίσι δαιδάΚθ€ντα μΐΚίζίμΐν aoibais. The A of TA was 
altered apparently from 0. 

46—7. μίν ... re : cf. e. g. 01. vi. 88—9 πρώτον μΐν . . . γνώναί τ βπατ . 

49• αοώάν πρόσφορον : the phrase recurs in Nem. ix. 7. 

50. The alteration of ΑΓΑΟΙΚΛ€Ι to 'Α•γασικλ€ίί is necessary for the metre. Who this 

Agasicles was is obscure ; perhaps he was the nais αμφιθαλής who αρχ^ι της δαφνηφορίας 

according to the account of Proclus ap. Photius Biil. 239, or he may merely have been 
some member of the family of Aeoladas. The rather abrupt way in which his name is 
introduced and the context in which it occurs might suggest that a third poem commenced 
in Col. iii, a supposidon which would be strengthened if the loss at the tops of the columns 
were extended by another fifteen lines (cf. introd.). But the hypothesis of two consecutive 
odes in the same metre would require to be justified by stronger evidence than that 
supplied by the passage before us. For πιστά μάρτυς cf. Pyfh. i. 88, and xii. 27 πιστοί 

^opevTOLV μάρτνρΐς, 

53. τιμαθύσιν : TIMAGGNTAC the papyrus, and the accusative may possibly have been 
justified by the sequel ; but as the passage stands τιμαθΰσιν τά πάλαι or τιμαθίντεσσι πάλαι 
seems an improvement, though the accumulation of datives is not elegant. In any case the 
division of the lines is wrong, as in 11. 40-1 and 66-7. For the language cf. Is^h. iii. 

25—6 τιμάΐντΐς άρχάβΐν Xeyovrai πρόξ€νοί τ άμφικτιόνων. It is noticeable that the papyrUS 

has the spelling άμφικτίοιτς which was restored to the text of Pindar by Boeckh in 
place of the MSS. reading άμφικτνον^ς. 

58. κΚυ]τάς is by no means certain. The letter before AC is possibly T, but more 
,of the crossbar should be visible. 

59. vaop is a necessary correction of the papyrus reading NAOT. 

61. The metre is complete at π^ρι-, and probably the fines were wrongly divided again 
— unless indeed the same addition was made as at the end of 1. 12. 

64-76. ', . . to [Thebes] of the seven gates. Then jealous wrath at so just an 
ambition of these men provoked a bitter unrelenting strife, but making full amends 
was changed to friendship. Son of Damaena, come, lead on now with [propitious ?] foot ; 
gladly upon thy way she first shall follow thee stepping with her sandals nigh upon the 
thick-leaved laurel, the daughter whom Daesistrota and . . . perfected with counsel . . .' 

64. Another disturbance in the metre has occurred in this line, which will not scan 
with έπταπύλοις as the first word. The vestiges before the lacuna suggest a round letter 
like e or Θ, and eTTTATTYAOICQHBAIC, e.g. may have been written for θη\βαις ίπταπυλοισιν. 
But it is just possible to read €ΤΤΤΑΤΤΥΛΟΙΟΙ[Ν, and to suppose that the missing syllable 
at the beginning of the line was transposed to 1. 63. 

65. The first Ν of 6ΝΗΚ€Ν is rather cramped ; but the writing becomes smaller and 
more compressed in this column. 

66. The transference of σώφρονος to this line is necessary meirt gratia. For μίριμνα in 


the sense of ambition for distinction in the games cf. e.g. 01. i. 109-11 debs imrponos εών 

Tfatai μη8€ται . . . 'lepwv μίρίμναισιν. 

67. Γ opposite this line marks the 300th verse; cf. 448. 302 and other Homeric 
papyri. With an average column of 28-9 lines (cf. introd.) this would be the eleventh 
column of the roll. 

The reading €χθραρ epiu is fairly satisfactory, though Ν€ hardly fills the space between 
the A and P. 

69. With 7Γ[ισ]τά5 the letters ICT must be supposed to have been very close together ; 
cf. note on 1. 65. 

70. Here again is a difficulty. There is no sign of the second leg of TT in TTA[.] and 
a Τ would in some respects be more satisfactory, but on the other hand the space between 
this letter and A is more consistent with a TT. The name Αάμαινα has no authority, but 
is in itself unobjectionable, standing in the same relation to Αάμωρ as Aeaiva to Aeau or 
Ύρνφαινα to Τρύφων. The person addressed may be Aeoladas or Pagondas, but his identity 
is of course quite obscure. With regard to the mutilated adjective agreeing with ποδί, 
immediately following the first lacuna is a vertical stroke (not very clear in the facsimile) 
with an angular base, which might be the second half of a Ν or the lower half of a letter 
like I or Τ ; in the latter case two letters might be lost in the lacuna. The vertical 
stroke is not long enough for p, so πά[τ€]ρ is excluded. The next letter could be an A or A, 
but the traces on the papyrus are very indistinct, and there may have been a correction. 
If πα\ϊ] is right the succeeding word must begin with a short vowel, unless indeed πά[ί] 
is read as a disyllable ; παις has been conjectured in 01. ii. 84. iXevOepci is unsuitable ; 

ίναισίμω might do. 

73. €Χ€Δ[.]Ν : the facsimile is again deceptive, transforming the X into β and € 
into C. There might be room for two narrow letters between Δ and N, but σχ6δ[ό]ι/ is 
hardly to be avoided, though δάφνα? ίύπβτάλου σχ6δ[ό]ΐ' βαίνοισα is not very satisfactory. 

75. Ααισιστρότα is another name for which no authority can be cited, but it is quite 
a possible form, στροτόί being the Boeotian for στρατοί. Whether the reference is to 
a goddess or a woman is doubtful. A second name must have followed in 1. 76 ; 
cf 11. 80-2, note. For the anaphora of the relative cf. the reading of some MSS. in 
Pindar, Fr. 75. 10 ov (v. I. τ6ν) Βρόμιορ op {v. I. τον) Έριβόαν Τ€ βροτοί KaXfopev. The A of the 
second AN is more like A. ίπασκύν is a Pindaric word ; cf, Nem. ix. 10 ίπασκησω κΚυτάίς 

ήρωα τιμαίς, and Fr. 1 94. 4. 

80-2. ' Do not when in sight of the nectar from my spring go thirsty away to 
a salt stream.' ν€κτα[ρ seems right, though the Τ is not very satisfactory, the length of the 
vertical stroke rather suggesting Ρ ; Τ, however, is an irregular letter. Cf for the metaphor 
01. vii. 7~9 ffl* ^ώ νίκταρ χντόν, Μοισαν 8όσιν, ά(θλοφόροΐί άνΒράσΐΡ πίμπων, γλυκύν καρπον 
φρενός, Ιλάσκομαι. The persons addressed are presumably the two named in 11. 75-6, 
the masculine form of the dual being used of a feminine subject as e. g. in Soph. O. C. 
1 1 13, 1676. In 1. 81 the original reading S(\^ai'r(e) seems preferable to the correction 
or variant διψωρτ^ι) since there is no certain instance in Pindar of the latter elision ; but 
of course the question cannot be decided without the following words : di^S>vT{t) άδύ, 
e. g., would give a good sense. It is noticeable that in the next line, though the substitution 
of Θ for the second X is necessary, the X has not been crossed out. 

Frs. (a) and (δ). On the position of these two fragments see note on 11. 1-4. 

Fr. («) 128. CHPA[ is very intractable, leading only to Σ^ρ or σψαγξ in some form; 
but the first letter is plainly C and not Θ. 

Fr. (r) 140. Above Ν to the right is a mark like a grave accent. 



660. Paean. 

Fr. (a) 13-1 X 9 cm. 

Two fragments, each from the top of a column, which is probably though 
not certainly one and the same, containing part of what is evidently a Paean. 
The lines seem to be rather long, and it is hardly possible to make out the 
sense or to discern in whose honour the paean was composed. Neither is there 
much clue to the identity of the author ; but Blass points out that, while άΐοισα 
(1. 8) indicates a lyric poet, the form vias for vaas is decisive against Pindar 
or Bacchylides. Perhaps the piece may be attributed to Simonides, but a 
later date is not impossible. 

The text is written in a good-sized, but not very regular, round uncial hand, 
which we should place near the end of the first or early in the second century. 
A high stop is used, and breathings, accents, and marks of quantity are added 
not infrequently, all being due to the original scribe. 

Fr. {a) [..].[.. .]χ€θδ[. .]v απ€ίρατ[ 

ias' ΐξπαιηοι/ ανα()σίων τ[ 
οιστοαν 8ού()ων Τ€ σι8άρο[ 
βρϊσζί veis αϊθβων μαλισ[τ 
5 η πολ€μον8€ κορυσσομ€[ν 
6eaneaLas S απο κνίσας fi[ 

κ[ ] πολλα /fiy Πνθοι π[ 

ά μξν ταυτ αίοισα γναμψ€[ί 
€σσομ[€]νον 5* veos ου μζλλ€ . [ 
ΙΟ [ΐζ]παίασ[ί]ι/• συν αλιοί τρίτα[ 
[ΐξ]παια(Γΐν α . χει/ . . ούλα . [ 
[. .]os' αυτίκα δΐ σκοπιάς οϊ [ 
[. .]ντο μ^τα^ρονιαι . [ 
[. .]νοντι . γαν κρατάν [ 
15 [ι^\παίαν δ αρα νύκτα κ[ 
[μα]ρτυραμ€ναι δ[.]κ[ 
[. .]as• Ϊ€7Γα[ιηο]ν' . [ 
[. .]ω πρω[. . .]![ 

]ον €σσ€σθ[αι 

] άμμορον [ 

]μων φα[ 

] . χοών δ[ 



Fr. (6) 





λν στο\[ 
.] . ova[ 
• •] βροτο[ 
.] . χρνσ[ 
, .]αοίδ[ 

. .]os• re[7rai770l•' 

1-6. The small fragment does not seem to join on directly to the larger, for though 
that position works well in the first three lines — απ€ΐρατ\ον^ τ {τ)\αμμορον, σώαρο[το\μων — 
difficulties arise in the remainder. In 1. 4 χ^ων is possible, but not, we think, χορον ; the 
letter before χ is probably η, ι, or ν, but not a. In 1. 5 the doubtful ω might possibly be v, 
but κορυσσομί[νω]ν could not be got into the space if there was no gap in 11. 1-2, nor could 
/χ[ίλδ]ο/χει/ο[ (cf. Homer, H. xxi. 363) be read in 1. 6. On the other hand it is not easy to 
reconstruct 11. 1-2 on the hypothesis of a loss between the two fragments of only one or two 
letters. In 1. 2 there appears to be something above the α of αμμορον besides the accent and 
it is perhaps intended for a smooth breathing, but the effect is rather that of a sign of short 
quantity. μ[ in 1. 6 may be a[ or λ[. 

'J. ΤΙνθοι π[ : or πνθοιτ . [? 

1 1 sqq. There is some uncertainty with regard to the number of letters lost at the 
beginnings of the lines. In 1. lo two letters are required before 7raiaa[i]v, and since there 
are three other instances of lenaiav or ι^παιηων in the fragment [ΐ€]παιασιν can hardly be 
avoided. In 1. ii there is rather less room, but something must have stood before παιασιν, 
and if the column leaned slightly to the right there would not be much difficulty in getting 
[le] into the space. [μα]ρτνραμΐναι in 1. 16 also looks very probable ; and if that be 
right, there must be two letters missing at the commencement of the preceding and 
following lines. 

II. Possibly αυχίνι . ου or avxeva[.'\ov. 

13. μΐταχρονιαι : cf. Hesiod, Theog. 269 μΐταχρόνιαί γαρ ΐαΧλον (of the Harpies), where 
μίταχρόνιαι is explained as equivalent to μΐτίωροι. 

661. Epodes. 

14-1 X 16-4 cm. 

Plate V. 

This fragment contains the beginnings and ends of lines from two 
columns of Epodes in the Doric dialect. Iambic trimeters alternate with 
trochaic verses of half their own length. Archilochus, the father of this style 
of poetry, cannot of course be the author on account of the dialect; and Blass 
considers that the piece may be attributed to Callimachus, who appears to have 



tried almost every variety of poetic composition and employed different dialects. 
Unfortunately the longer lines are so incomplete that to make out the general 
drift is impossible. 

Palaeographically this fragment is of considerable interest. It is written 
in handsome round uncials, of a type not infrequent in papyri (cf. 25, 224, 678, 
686, 701), and also exemplified in the great Biblical codices. On the verso of 
the papyrus are parts of two columns in a cursive hand which is not later than 
the beginning of the third century, and is quite as likely to fall within the 
second. The text on the recto then can be assigned with little chance of error 
to the latter half of the second century. Accents, &c.; have been added by two 
different hands, some being very small and neat, others larger and in lighter ink. 
To the smaller hand may be attributed also the occasional corrections and the 
punctuation, but whether this hand can be identified with that of the body 
of the text is doubtful. The document in cursive seems to be a series of medical 
prescriptions or directions ; it is too fragmentary to give any connected sense, 
but the occurrence of the words τρείβανον, σνκάμίΐνοί and apparently xipaXios 
may be noted. 

Col. i. Col. ii. 



7 at 

\pos άριω /zlfoy. 
y καταρροον 
Ka\t μ€ SiKTVoLS 

ov ώ ΙΙα\αιμον€9 
το θηριον 

]οι/ ώ ΙΙαλάιμον€9 

15 ] απωθ€ τον φθόρον 


ποτα9 lepa? βλ[ 
και τνχ^ αμπυριξ . [ 
ύληγ' ο μνθο^' κα[ι 
πνρ8άρωί 7ryXe7r[ 
20 κηγω π ζκίίναν [ 

Tais €μαις €πωδα[ΐ9 
οι δ ξΐπαν [. .]ι/€[ 


μη τύ y αντΐ9 €^\^6[ηΐ9 


η• κάι με π[[ίτ]]ο[[ι/]]τοΐ' [ 
25 ^ϊ'^[[χ]]€ σ•αννιαστα[^ 

ΐριψαν άνθι δ e^ aXo[s 

π[.]/θ[[κ]]αλοι/ κατάγρ[ 

e[/cl τα 9 θάλασσαν τ\ 


3. The corrector apparently wished to alter αριω /xfi/os to aypiai μ€νος, but the ω is not 
crossed through. Blass suggests θη]ρο5 αγριω pevos, and notes that in Afi/L• Pal. xii. 162. i 
ονττω τοξοφορωρ ουδ' apios the same corruption or the same word occurs. 

9. The plural Ώαλαιμονΐ! means sea-gods. 

16. noras is for ποττάς, i. e. ιιοτι ras. 

17. ? αμτΓνριξα[ς, but the vcstigcs of the letter following ξ do not suggest a, though that 
letter cannot be said to be impossible, τνχαμ πνριξ . . gives no sense. 

19. 7rvX€7r[ is a vox nihili: the letters are all quite clear. 

2\. η — η, as the punctuation shows; but the apparent use of the singular form with 
a plural subject is -peculiar. The deleted letters are crossed through and besides have dots 
over them, ν above ν might be read as λί, but that is less likely. 

26. Above the ι of ανβι is a small circular mark which seems to be accidental. A high 
point might be recognized after (ρριψαν. 

2*1 . κατά-γρ[ may be κατά•γρ[η = καθύρΐΐ, but then the preceding word should be a noun, 
and it is difficult to find anything suitable. The β above the deleted κ is almost certain, and 
the vestiges of the first letter of the line strongly suggest π, which leaves us with π[α\ρβάΚον 
or π[ν]ρ βάΚον. 

662. Epigrams. 

Ι2•8 χ 49 cm. 

These epigrams, some of which are extant, others nevi^, are written in three 
columns on the verso of the papyrus containing the new Pindar fragments, 659. 
The first column, of which only the ends of lines are preserved, comprises two 
epitaphs of Leonidas (of Tarentum) and Antipater of Sidon, which already 
exist in the Anthology {=Anth. Pal. vii. 163, 164). These are succeeded in 
Col. ii by two poems ascribed to Amyntas, one upon the same Samian woman 
Prexo who is the subject of the first two epigrams and of another in the same 
style by Antipater or Archias [Anth. Pal. vii. 165), the second upon the capture 
of Sparta by Philopoemen in B.C. 188. Of Amyntas nothing whatever is known 
apart from this papyrus ; the historical allusions of the second poem and the 
identity in subject of the first with the similar epitaphs of Leonidas and 
Antipater warrant the conclusion that he also flourished in the second century 
B.C. The third column contains two new dedicatory epigrams composed for 
a certain Glenis by Leonidas and Antipater respectively, with the first two 
words of another which was left unfinished, apparently again by Leonidas. 

The copyist, who wrote an irregular uncial hand, was a careless and 
unintelligent person, and there are frequent mistakes and corruptions, while 
a dislocation of the lines has apparently occurred at the top of Col. ii. The 
date of this text seems to be not much later than that on the recto, and probably 
it falls within the reign of Augustus like the majority of the papyri with which 


it was found. Accents and stops are of rare occurrence ; a double point is once 
used in a dialogue (1. 11). The negligence of the writer and the discolouration 
of the papyrus render decipherment a matter of some difficulty. 

Col. i. 

[ Λζ(ϋνί8ον\ 

[riy TLvos €υσα yvvai ΤΙαριην νπο /cjctoj'a κ[ί]σαί 

[Πρήξω KaXXiT€\ev9 και ποδ]α7Γη Χαμιη 

[tis Βξ. σ€ καί κτ€ρ€ΐξ€ QeoKp]iTOS ω μ€ γ€γων€9 
5 [e^cSoaai/ Θνησκξΐς S €κ tlvos] €κ τ[ο]κ€τον 

[€υσα ττοσων ίτ^ων δυο Κ€ίκοσί]ι/ V Ρ*^ 7 cctckvo? 

[ονκ άλλα τρίξτη Καλλιτ€λην €λi\πou 

[ζωοί σοι Keivos ye και ey βαθν] γηραί lkolto 

[καί σοι ^€iv€ ττοροι πάντα Tv)(\ri τα καλά 
ΙΟ [ Αντιττατρον] 

[φραζξ γνναι γ€ν€ην ονο]/χα γθονα : Καλλιηλης μΐν 

[ο σπΐΐρας Πράξω δ ουνομ]α γη δ€ ^αμο9 

[σαμα 5e τΐ9 τοδ έχωσε Θ€θ]κριτο9 ο ττριν άθικτα 

[αμ€Τ€ρα9 λνσας αμματα παρθ]€νιαν 
15 [ττως δζ Oaves λογιοισιν ev] αλγζσιν είττε 5ε ποιαν 

[ηλ6€9 ε? ηλίκιην δισσακι]ί €νδ€Κ€Τΐί 


[η και απαΐ9 ον ^€iv€ λζλ]οιπα γαι ev νίοτατι 

[Καλλιτ€λη ] • Γί^ vri[7ria\ov] 

[ξλθοι ε? ολβιστην πολιην] τριχ[α και σον οδ]ιτα 
2θ [ονριον ιθννοι πάντα Τύχη βιοτον] 

Col. ϋ. 
αυχ/ζαλεα? νοπ[.] . ον υπ οφρυο9 ανθ^σι δάκρυ 
ν[.^(ΰν €νβα[.]σζΐ^ "^[,] . ρο[.]απτι^ σπιλαδι 
φραζ€ γυναι τι? €ουσα κ[α]ι €κ τινοί είττε τε πατρην 

25 »'ί7[[.]]θίαί €6av€S νουσου υπ αργαλ€η9 

ουνομα K€V Πράξω ^αμιη ξ€ν€ εκ ίε γονηοί 



KaWiTeXevs γένομαι/ αλλ eOavov τοκ€τω• 

Tis Se ταφον σταλωσ^ Θεουκρίτο^ η μ€ avvevvov 

avSpL 8θ(ταν ποιην δ ηλθ€9 €y ηλικιην 

3θ CTrraeri? τρΐ9 evos γ^νομαν €τι η ρα γ areKvos 
ου ΕαλλίΤΐλη? τρίξτή τταιδα δομώ λιπομαν 

τα9 ττζσαροΐ ατρεστον Λακεδαίμονα ras /cepa μουνα^ 
7Γθλλακί9 αν πολ^σί δ[η]ριν ίφριξεν Αρης 

35 νυν υτΓ ανικατωι Φίλοποιμενι δουρι τ Α•)^α]ια>ν 
πρηνηί εκ τρισσαν ηριπε μυριαδαν 
ασκβπος οιωνοί δβ πζριζμυχηρον ιδοντίί 
μύρονται ττΐδιον δον . e[. . .]0€σίπο9 
[κ]α7Γνον δ €κθρωσ[κοντα .]€ρ€η[.] . [.]ο Xoer/JOiS 

40 [. .]δα9 δζρκομς.να[ α]κροπο[λ . .] 

Col. Hi. 

Ακρωριται Πανί και €νπα[ ] νυμφαία 

[Γ]λημιψ ο σννγζίτων δωροί κ[ννηγζσι]η9 


ταυταν re ττροτομαν και δ^ ]ησ• . [.]/ 

45 βνρσαν και podiovs τουσ[δ ανεθηκε] ττοδα^ 

Παν ω και νυμοαι τονδ[ αγ]ρζντηρα 

Τληνιν αζξησαιθ αΐξ8[ ]s 


σιλαινων αλο\οι^ αντρτ]ΐσίν ηδ€ κ€ρασται 
50 τασδ Ακρωριται Πανί και ηγεμονι 

και προτομαν ακμητα και αυτό v€ov τοδ€ κάπρου 

δξρμα το μηδ αυτω ρηγνυμενον -^αλυοι 

Γληνΐ9 ανηβρτησξ καλα9 χαριτησ[ω]ν aypas 

δζίκνυς ιφθιμου κούρος Οναφαν€[.]5 




{a) ] . [ {b) 60 JaTT . [ 

]κα[ \Υ^νΎ^ 

4• y€y oiVfs (or Teyaves) IS for yor^er. 

12. Ώραξω : SO I. 26 ; τίρηξώ MSS. But the spelling of the papyrus is too inconsistent 
to merit much attention. Thus we have in a single epigram αυχμαλίαν and αργαλΐης 
(11. 22, 25), iroias and ποιην (11. 25, 29); η howcver tends to predominate after a vowel or ρ in 
the epigrams of Amyntas, a elsewhere. 

14, napS^fviav: \. παρθενίας OT -η:. 

1 7. The ί above the line is clear enough, and the letter below is apparently t and not 
p. yap is of course the right reading. 

18-20. The question of the position of the two fragments (a) and (3) at the bottom of 
this column has already had to be considered in connexion with the text on the recto ; cf. 
note on 659. 1-4. They might well be put here so far as the appearance of the papyrus 
and of the writing is concerned ; but the letters will certainly not coincide with any known 
version of 11. 18-20. The scribe is far from being reliable no doubt, and something has 
evidently gone wrong in 1. 18, which should be Καλλιτ€λη τρκτη παίδ' en νηπίαχυν. Before 
νη[πιαχον\ however there is a clear « ; perhaps en e or en-e for en was written, τρίχα and 
οδιτα being in their right places it is scarcely admissible to postulate a divergence from the 
ordinary reading in the intervening words. Combining the two fragments, κα\ σύ γ όΓδΙΐτα 
[οϋριον Ιθΰνοις — w ^ — βίοτ\ον would give an intelligible variant ; but apart from the difficulty 
of reading συ and ^ov this also upsets νηπίαχον, with which the first line of Fr. (δ) is incon- 
sistent, and does not account for the space between r/3tx[o] and και ; moreover on turning to 
the recto the resulting readings αιτι[.]σα\[, aei8fopoa[, [,]ω . €ναικ[ (cf. 659 Frs. {a), (d)) are, 
to say the least, unattractive. We therefore prefer to suppose that these fragments came 
earlier in the papyrus ; they do not seem to belong to the lost half of this column. 

22-3. These two very puzzling lines do not combine at all easily with what follows and 
may be displaced ; perhaps, as Blass suggests, they belong to the next epigram, which is 
apparently defective at the beginning; cf. note on 11. 33-4. The construction would 
indeed be improved by a verb for ίουσα in 1. 24 to depend upon (as in the first line of 
Leonidas' epigram τις τίνος fvaa . . . κίϊσαι), but the word φράζ€ is the natural commence- 
ment (cf. 1. 11 and An/k. Pal. vii. 165. i tint, yuvai, τίς (φνς), and the participle is not 
unintelligible. With regard to the reading, in 1. 22 the letter after vo may be y, and there 
are traces of ink above ο which may indicate a correction ; before ov is the end of a high 
cross stroke which would suit y, σ or τ. νοτ[(]ρον is just possible though not satisfactory, 
and would of course leave the line a syllable short. In 1. 23 ίρβλ[ could be read for ΐκ3α[ 
and the following word is perhaps some form of ψυχρός ; but there is hardly space for 
a letter between the (very doubtful) ο and the a (which may be another o). The ψ might 
be φ. Blass suggests λύβων eμβλ€^j/eιs . . . , and this may well be right, but was certainly 
not written. 

24-31. '"Say, lady, who you are and who your father, and tell your country and of 
what grievous sickness you died." " My name, sir, is Praxo of Samos, and I was the 

F 3 


daughter of Calliteles, but I died in childbirth." " Who set up the tomb ? " " My husband, 
Theocritus, to whom they gave me to wife." " And what age did you reach ? " " Thrice 
seven and one year old was I." " And were you childless ? " "I left in my home a boy 
of three years, Calliteles." ' 

24. e of e/c Avas converted from t and the letters ivo have also been corrected. 

25. 1. Koi ποίας Waves, νηπιας seems to have been originally written, the π being 
subsequently converted into ο and another π added above the line. Whether the initial v, 
of which only a slight vestige remains, was at the same time altered is doubtful owing to 
a hole in the papyrus. 

26. Kfp is a mistake for μίν. 

28. 1. Θεόκριτος ω. Cf. 11. 1 5-6 above and An/h. Pal. vii. 165. 3-4 Θεόκριτος ος μ€ 
(Tvvevvov rfyfTO, 

3 1 . The superfluous ου at the beginning of the line is due to the analogy of the two 
previous epigrams: cf. 11. 7 and 17. 1. ΚάΚλιτίλην. 

33-8 ' . . . Sparta, of old the dauntless, at whose single-handed might Ares in war 
was many a time and oft terror-struck, is now cast headlong and defenceless by thrice ten 
thousand foes, beneath unconquered Philopoemen and the spears of the Achaeans; and 
the birds looking upon the smoking plain mourn . . .' 

33-4. 1. ταν πάρος . . . τας χέρα . . . πολλάκις iv πολίσιν. The last WOrd is however very 

doubtful ; πο may be τω and σ may be e, while of the supposed e only a slight vestige of the 
base is left. Blass would retain av and read πόλεων or πολίων. A couplet has fallen out either 
before or after 11. 33-4, since there is nothing to govern Αακίδαιμονα. Perhaps, as suggested 
above, 11. 22-3 should come in here, though they do not seem particularly appropriate. 
35• δ* should perhaps be inserted after vw. 

36. 1. μνριά8ων. 

37• ζ οί περιζμυχηρον (^ π(ρισμυχηράν) has been corrected. 

38. The letters in the latter part of the line are much damaged ; the φ could equally 
well be ψ, εσ may be ατ or . f, and for the supposed π, which is not satisfactory, . t should 
perhaps be substituted. 

39-40. The letters ]fpe»?[ and ]κροπο[ are on a detached fragment, the appearance of 
which decidedly points to the position here assigned to it. The contents of the recto 
create no difficulty (cf. 659. 21-4 note) and ακρόπολις in some form fits the context in 1. 40 
very well ; moreover above ρ of ]epfn[ is the end of a long stroke descending from the Une 
above, which just suits the φ or ψ after the lacuna in 1. 38. The cumulative effect of these 
considerations is undeniably strong. 

42-7. * To Pan of Acroria and the . . . nymphs were dedicated as hunting-spoils by 
neighbour Glenis this head and . . . hide and these swift feet. Ο Pan and ye Nymphs, 
prosper the doughty hunter Glenis . . .' 

42. Άκρώρίΐα was the name of a mountain peak in Sicyon, and ^Κκρωράτης is given by 
Steph. Byz. as a local epithet of Dionysus. The mutilated word before ννμφακ was 
probably some adjective ending in -tcrt (cf. 1. 49), but the space is very short for bi:^ — (^ ^ 
as required by the metre, and a corruption may be suspected. 

43. 1. Τληνις as in 11. 47 and 53. For κ[ννηγεσι]ης cf. Anth. Pal. vi. 183. 2 ; σ[υαγρεσφΓ 

(vi. 34. 4) could also be read. 

44. The first α of τανταν has been corrected, and to make the result clearer another τ 
was added above the line. 


45. Cf. Anth, Pal. vi. 34. 2 και κάπρου τουσδβ καθάψί πόδα?, καθαψΐ might of COUrse be 

read for ανίθηκί here, but the meaning would not be affected. 

46. 1. νυμφαι. ]ρ€ντηρα mUSt be βηρ(υτήρα ΟΓ άγρΐντηρα ; perhaps τόνδ' [αλκιμον άγΥ^ντηρα. 

47• 1. άΐξησαιτ followed by something like aUv αγραισι κάλαίς ; but the remains of the 

letter after me suggest δ, ζ, or ξ. Cf. An/k. Pal. vi. 158. 3-4 av|ere δ' αλά τίαν άγίΚην Ννμφαι 
ηίδακα, and vi. 34• 5~^ ^^^' ^ ^"^ ο^κοπιητα κάϊ els οπίσω ΠοΧναινον evaypov πeμ7Γoιs vUa Σιμνλίω. 

49-54• ' Το the cave-dwelling mates of the Sileni and to horned Pan of Acroria their 
chief these trophies, a scathless head and new boar's hide, that not even steel may rend, 
were hung up to view as a thank offering for a goodly quarry by Glenis the son of noble 

49. 1. ΣιΚηνων. 

50. 1. ταντ for τασδ, 

51. ακμητα may be interpreted in the sense of 'uninjured' or 'permanent' on the 
analogy of πνλαι άκμητes in An/h. Pal. ix. 526 or may be regarded as an epithet which 
strictly applies only to the living animal (cf. Soph. Antig. 353 ovpewv τ άκμητα ταΰρον). 

52. χαλνοι is for χάλνβι ', cf. ννμοαι for νυμφαι in 1. 46. The top of the ο is missing, 
but β seems excluded. 

54. 1. Όva{σι^φάve\υ^s ? 

56. 1. δρυμονόμου or δρυμον όμοϋ. The rest of the epigram was never added. 

663. Argument of Cratinus' AIONYCAAEZANAPOZ. 

ΐ9•8χ i2'3 cm. 

Of all the lost Greek classics there are few of which the recovery would be 
of greater importance than the plays of Cratinus or Eupolis, and though the 
present fragment does not give any actual portion of Cratinus' works it never- 
theless throws some interesting and much wished for light upon the plots of his 
comedies, about which almost nothing was known previously. It consists of 
the argument of the Διovυσ■aλ€ξavbpoSy one of Cratinus* most famous plays, 
written in a small uncial hand in the late second century or the first half of the 
third. The title Αωνυσαλίξανδροί fj (i. e. the 8th drama) Kpareivov occurs, not 
where it would be expected at the end, but at the top of the last column, and 
is written in much larger uncials. What is meant by this comedy being called 
the ' 8th ' is uncertain. Similar numbers are assigned to extant Greek plays in 
their arguments, e. g. the Antigone of Sophocles is the * 32nd,' the Alcestis of 
Euripides the ' lyth,^ the Birds of Aristophanes the ' 35th.' That the numbers 
refer to the chronological order is barely possible in the first two of these 
instances and impossible in the third ; and in the case of the Dionysalexandrus 
also it is very improbable that the arrangement according to which that play was 



the 8th was chronological. K5rte would make it an alphabetical arrangement. 
As frequently happens in scholia, there are numerous abbreviations in the text 
of the argument. In most cases the last letter written of an abbreviated word 
is above the line ; Έρμ{ψ) in 1. 5 and 'ηαραΙοθτί]σ6μζνο{ν) in 1. 40 are written ep/x' 
and τταρα^οθησομζνο . και takes various forms, κ in 1. 6, κ$ in 11. 9, 17, ^^, and 43, 
q in 11. 11 and ai. μ for μ4ν occurs in 11. 7 and 38, and δ' for δ^ in 11. ^3 and 40. 
The high stop is occasionally employed. The MS. is not very accurate, cor- 
ruptions occurring in two lines ; cf. notes on 11. 8 and la. The extant fragments 
of the Αιονυσαλύξαν8ροί, apart from single words, number nine, and how little 
these and the title of the play served to indicate its contents may be judged 
from the fact that Meineke considered Άλίξαν^ρο^ to be Alexander the Great, 
and therefore wished to assign the play to the younger Cratinus. Kock on the 
other hand inferred from the common occurrence of well-known mythical 
personages in the titles of comedies that Alexander was the Trojan Paris, and 
favoured the authorship of Cratinus the elder. The acute hypothesis of Kock 
is now verified by the papyrus, which shows that ^Aλ€ξavbpos in the title is indeed 
the Trojan, and that the plot turned upon an amusing perversion of the story 
of the Trojan war, in which Dionysus played the part assigned in the legend 
to Paris. That the play was the work of the elder Cratinus is moreover 
proved by the note appended at the end, stating that Pericles was attacked 
for having been the cause of the war. The date of its performance is thus 
fixed to the year B.C. 430 or 439. 

The earlier part of the argument, contained in the upper portion of Col. i 
and probably in a preceding column, is lost, and where the papyrus becomes 
intelligible it is describing the τταρά/Βασυ (11. 6-9). The chorus apparently 
consisted of satyrs in attendance upon Dionysus (cf. 1. 42 and 1. 6, note), and 
the action took place for the most part on Mount Ida. The -παράβασι^ is 
followed (11. 9-12) by a scene between the chorus and Dionysus, in which they 
mock at him, very likely on account of the guise in which he presents himself. 
Possibly Cratin. Fr, inc. 381 ττοιμην καθέσττ\κ al-noXos καΧ βονκόλο9 refers to this 
incident. Then comes (11. 12-9) a parody of the judgement of Paris. Aphrodite, 
who promises to Dionysus that he shall be the most beautiful and most beloved 
person in the world, naturally is victorious. Dionysus next goes to Sparta and 
brings back Helen to Mount Ida (11. 30-3). Upon the approach of the Achaeans 
they both take refuge in the house of the real Alexander, Dionysus turning 
himself into a ram and hiding Helen in a basket (11. 23-33)• It is easy to 
understand the boisterous fun to which this scene must have given rise. A 
glimpse of it is afforded by the familiar quotation from the Dionysalexandrtis 6 b* 
ηλίθιοί ωστί(ρ ττρόβατον βη βη λέγων βal•ίζ€L, which no doubt refers to Dionysus' 



appearance in the character of a sheep. Alexander himself now comes on the 
stage, and detects the lovers ; the denouement is that Helen remains with him 
as his wife, while Dionysus is sent off in disgrace to be delivered to the Achaeans, 
but accompanied by the faithful satyrs (11. 33-44). 

The papyrus concludes with the scholiast's remark already mentioned, 
showing that the play was directed against Pericles, who may well have been 
satirized in the principal character as Dionysus. Imperfect as it is, the argu- 
ment well illustrates the perversion of familiar legends which seems to have 
been a favourite resource of the older comic poets, and of Cratinus in particular. 

We are indebted to Prof. A. Korte for several suggestions on this 

Col. i. 

[ ] • 

[ ]Crir{ ) 

[ ]τταν 

[ ] αυτόν μη 

5 [ M-j'O-ii' ο Ερμ{η^) 

[ yrai κ{αι) ούτοι 

μ^εν) π•/3(ο?) tovs θίατας 

τίνα πνων ποίη{ ) 

SiaXcyovTui κ{αι) 
ΙΟ παραφανΐντα τον 

Δίονυσον €ΤΓΐσκα:{πτονσι) (/cat) 

)(λ€ναζονσ{ιν) ο (5(e) πα 

ραγ€νομ€νων αντωι 

τταρα μ€ν [Hpas] Tvpavvi8o{s) 
15 ακίνητου πα[ρ]α δ Αθήναι 

«;τι;χί(α?) κ(α)τ[α) πολ€μο{ν) τη9 

δ Αφροδι(της) καλλιστο{ν) re κ(αι) 

ζΐΓ€ραστον αυτόν υπαρ 

\€ΐν Kpivei ταντην νικαν 
2θ μ{<ί)τ[α) δ€ ταυ{τα) nXevaas eis 

Λακ€δαιμο(να) (και) την Ελ^νην 

Col. ϋ. 

Ζν [ 


τον Αλ€ζαν[δ(ρον) κ{αι) την μ{ζν) Ελζνη[ν) 
3θ €ί9 ταλαρον ωσπ[€ρ τυρον ? 

κρυψα5 €αυτον δ eis κριο{ν) 

μ(€)τ(α)σκζυασα9 ϋπομ€ν€ΐ 

το peXXov παραγξνο 

pivos δ AXe^av8[po9) κ(αι) φωρα 
35 <^tty €κατ€ρο(ν) αγξΐν €7Γί ray 

ναυ9 πρ(οσ)ταττ€ΐ ω? παραδωσων 

T01S A-^aiot{9) οκνουση^ δξ τη? 

ΕΧ€νη{9) ταυτην μ(€ν) oiKTeipas 

fisy γυναΐ)( (ζων €7ηκατ€χ(ζΐ) 
40 τον 5(e) Αωνν(σον) coy παραδοθη 

σομ€νο(ν) αποστζΧΧξΐ συν 

ακοΧου6{ουσι) δ οι σατυ^ροι) παρακαΧουν 

rey re κ{αι) ουκ αν προδωσζΐν 

αυτόν ψασκοντ€9 κωμω 

46 δξίται δ ev τω δραματι ile 

ρικΧη? μαΧα πιθανώς δι 


i^ayayoav €7ΓαΡ€ρχζτ{αι) €μφασζω9 ω? €παγ€ΐοχω? 

€ί9 τηρ Ιδην ακον^σαή 5(e) μ€ tois Αθηναίοι^ τον πολ^μον 

τ ολίγον του? Αχαιού? πυρ 
25 [πο\]ζΐν την χω{ραν) 0[ei/y(€i) προ? 

6 sqq. ' These (the satyrs) address the spectators on behalf of (?) the poet, and when 
Dionysus appears mock and jeer at him. Dionysus, being offered by Hera indestructible 
power, by Athena success in war, and by Aphrodite the prospect of becoming the most 
beautiful and most beloved of all, adjudges the victory to Aphrodite. Afterwards he sails 
to Lacedaemon, carries away Helen, and returns to Ida. Hearing soon after that the 
Achaeans are ravaging the country, he takes refuge with Alexander, and hiding Helen in 
a basket like a (cheese?) and turning himself into a ram awaits the event. Alexander 
appears and detects them both, and orders them to be led away to the ships intending to 
hand them over to the Achaeans ; but w^hen Helen objects he takes pity on her and keeps 
her to be his wife, but sends off Dionysus to be handed o\'er. Dionysus is accompanied 
by the satyrs who encourage him and declare that they will not desert him. In the 
play Pericles is satirized with great plausibility by innuendo for having brought the war 
upon the Athenians.' 

6. Perhaps anepx]fTai, as Korte suggests, οντοι: sc. the satyrs (cf. 1. 42), as Blass 
thinks. Though of course this is not a satyric play, there seems no reason why a chorus 
should not be composed of satyrs, especially in a comedy in which Dionysus is the chief 
character. The verbs in 11. 11-2 are very appropriate too to the satyrs, who occur in 1. 42 
as if they had been mentioned before. 

8. πύων τΓοιη{ ) is corrupt. Blass suggests vnep τον ποιη[τον), which makes good sense 
but is a rather drastic change ; cf. however the next note. Korte prefers n[fpt) των 
τΓοιη(των), which is nearer to the text of the papyrus. 

12. παραγίνομ€ί'ων seems to be a mistake for some word like προτα,νομίνων. Korte 

suggests ■παρα-γ•γίΚ\ομΐνων. 

30. Perhaps ωσπκρ τυρον or ταριχ^οί) ; cf. Ar. Ran. 558-60 τό πολύ τάριχοί ουκ ΐίρηκά 
πω. μα ΔΓ, ουδέ τον τυρόν ye τον χΚωρόν, τάλαν, ον ούτος αύτοΪ! toIs ToXapois κατησθαν. γαρον IS 

also possible; cf. Crat. J^r. inc. 280 ό τάλαρος υμΐν διάπλίω? ίσται yapov. Korte prefers opviv 
or χήνα, τάλαρον being the technical word in Athenaeus p. 122 for a bird-basket. 

664. Philosophical Dialogue. 

Height 29 cm. 

Part of a philosophical dialogue on the subject, apparently, of government, 
one of the characters in which is no less a person than Pisistratus the tyrant of 
Athens. There remain in all portions of four columns, contained in two main 
fragments which do not join and of which the relative position has to be 
determined by internal evidence. In Fr. (a), the first column of which is 
complete, some one who speaks in the first person gives an account of his 


movements at the time of the usurpation of Pisistratus. He had left Athens 
after that event took place and joined Solon in Ionia ; subsequently at the 
instance of his friends, including Pisistratus himself, and on the advice of Solon, 
he returned to Athens and was there invited to the house of Hagnotheus, a 
relative of his own and grandfather of Thrasybulus son of Philomelus, a young 
man whose guardian he himself was. Of the second column we have no more 
than the first iew letters of the lines ; but in the lower part of it other speakers 
evidently intervened (1. 68 'ί]φη ω [, 1. 8i ύττολαβω[ν). Fr. (d), containing another 
nearly complete column, is also in dialogue form. Here the persons are, 
besides the narrator (^φην, 11. 7, I2), Pisistratus, Ariphron, and Adimantus, and the 
principal subject of conversation is the career of the tyrant Periander of Corinth, 
in whose company Ariphron professes that he and Adimantus had recently 
been, and whose misfortunes he proceeds to describe. Most probably Fr. (a) 
comes from near the beginning of the work, and the narrative portion of Col. i 
is introductory to the whole dialogue. How much, if anything, is lost between 
Col. ii and Col. iii (Fr. (d)) is of course quite uncertain, but it is improbable 
that there is any considerable gap. The anonymous narrator in Col. i will 
accordingly be the same person as the speaker in Col. iii. 11. 93-102 ; but the 
identity of this intimate friend (1. 13) of Pisistratus and sharer in the exile 
of Solon remains a puzzle. Ariphron is perhaps to be recognized as the grand- 
father of Pericles ; and Thrasybulus, son of Philomelus, of whom it is here 
remarked (1. 29) that he was popularly supposed to be in love with the tyrant's 
younger daughter, is evidently the Thrasybulus of whom Plutarch tells the story 
{Apophth. Reg. et Imp., p. 189 c, de Ira Cohib., p. 457 f, cf. Val. Max. v. i. 2) 
that he kissed the daughter of Pisistratus at a chance meeting, and that the 
latter instead of being angry gave him her hand in marriage. Polyaenus, who 
adds an episode of the abduction of the girl by her lover [Strategem. 5. 14), 
substitutes Thrasymedes for Thrasybulus, but agrees with our author as to the 
name of his father, Philomelus. 

But who was the author of this dialogue ? It is written in remarkably good 
Attic (except et? οίκον for et? {τΐ]ν) οΐκίαν in 1. 40), and so far as the style is concerned 
it may be a product of the Aristotelian age. Blass, indeed, suggests that it might 
actually be attributed to Aristotle, with whom Pisistratus was a favourite 
figure. In support of such a view appeal could be made to certain resemblances 
in language between this fragment and the 'Αθηναίων Πολιτίία — assuming the 
authenticity of that work : — compare e. g. 11. ^-6 {Σόλων) ττρολύγων Άθηναίοΐί οτι 
ΐΐξίσίστρατοί Ιτηβονλίύα rvpavvibt ττζίθζΐν avrovs ονκ ην bwaros with Atk. Pol. 14. 2 
όσοι μ\ν yap άγνοονσι ΐΐασίστρατον (ττίτιθίβίνον Tvpav[vibt] . . . eTret be λέγων [ονκ 
eTTftj^ei', 11. 8-9 ά■nobημίav ivTivOev τΐοιησάμ^νοί with. A t^. Pol. II. I, 13. 1 ά^robημίav 


(ττοίησατο, 11. 33-4 δια την των ^TfJaγμάτωv κατάστασιν with Ath. Pol. 43. I η νυν 
κατάστασι^ rrjs TioXiTeias, 11. 25-6 ovbeh e7reSe5cu/<et irpbs μίγαλοφύξίαν with Aik. Pol. 
37. 2 τΓολί; Trpos ωμότητα (cf. 1. II2) και ττονηρίαν k-nihoaav ; cf. also 1. 1 15 τιζ^ι ταΰττ/ 
Ι'φ[7?] and Arist. Fr. 44 τ^ τουτ' ίφη. But such coincidences are not very con- 
clusive ; and on the other hand these fragments do not conform to the normal 
type of Aristotelian dialogue, in which, as we know both from the allusions of 
Cicero {ad Ait. iv. 16, xiii. 19) and his imitations, the leading part was taken by 
the philosopher himself. It will be safer then to leave the writer anonymous, 
though he may well be as early as the third or even fourth century B. C. 

As will have been observed, this papyrus reopens some important questions 
of history and chronology, upon which some remarks are made in the commentary 
(notes on 11. i-io, 106-9). If Solon went to Asia when Pisistratus became 
tyrant, his famous meeting with Croesus may have occurred then, and the 
' beautiful myth ' be after all a sober fact. The synchronism of the tyrannies 
of Pisistratus and Periander is another very interesting point, which with the 
testimony of Herodotus partly on the same side should not be dismissed too 
lightly. It is no doubt a question how far the setting of an imaginary dialogue 
can supply a basis for historical conclusions ; but a comparison with such a 
work as Plutarch's Symposium is hardly fair to the present fragments, which 
may probably be regarded as an index to the average opinion of the day, and 
as such deserving of consideration, in spite of the conflict with the ' so-called 
systems of chronology, the contradictions of which a thousand correctors have 
not yet succeeded in harmonizing.' 

The papyrus is written in tall columns measuring 32 X 7 cm., in a round 
uncial hand rather resembling that of 412 (P. Oxy. Ill, Plate v), which dates 
approximately from the year 245 A. D. ; the present example is more regular 
and graceful, but no doubt belongs to about the same period. A second hand 
has made one or two small corrections, and seems also to have added some 
at least of the paragraphi and stops. Of the latter all three kinds are found 
(middle at 11. 36, 38, 105, 153 ; low at 1. 18) ; but they are not used with much 
discrimination. The double points, which as usual mark a change of speaker, 
also look more like the second hand than the first. The occasional diaereses, 
however, and marks of elision, as well as the angular signs sometimes employed 
for filling up a short line, are with little doubt by the original scribe. 

{a) Col. i. Col. ii. 

προτ^ρον η Πισιστρατον λαβείν [β^ωι 

την αρχήν αττ^δημησ^ν €1T€L [ 



8η προ\€γων Αθηναίοι^ οτι 
Πισιστρατοί €πίβονλξν€ί τν 
5 ραννιΒι πιθζΐν avrovs ουκ ην 
SvvaTOS' eyoo Se καταμ€ΐναί 

ηδη Πισιστρατου τνρανν[ο^ν 
TOS απο8ημιαν €vt€v6€v 
τΐοιησαμ^νο^ ev Ιωνιαί μ€τα 
ΙΟ ϋολωρο? δίξτριβον χρονωι 

Se των φίλων σπούδαζαν 
των ηκ€ίν μζ• και μάλιστα 
Πισιστρατου δια την οικείο 
τητα' ^ολωνο? κΐλ^νοντος 
15 €πανηλθον Λθηναζζ κατ€ 

λιτΓον μ€ν ονν ΐνταυθα παι 
δα Θρασυβονλον τον Φίλο 
μήλον, κατζίληφζΐν δ€ μ€ΐ 
ρακ[ι]ον ηδη μαλα καλόν καγα 
2θ Θον και την όψιν και τον τρο 
παν τΓολυ διαφέροντα των 
ηλικιωτων τ€τα7Γ€ΐνωμ€ 

νων γαρ των άλλων δια την 
των Ίτραγματων καταστασιν 
25 ονδ€ΐ9 ζπζδ^δωκίΐ προς μ€ 

γαλοφυαν- παντας δ€ ΰπ€ρ€ 
βαλ€ν ϊπποτροφιαις και κν 
νηγιαι? και ταΐί αλλαις δαπα 
v[ais] δ[ΐ€]βφλητο δ €v τηΐ πο 

3© X[e]t τη? ν^ωτίρα? των του 
του Πισιστρατου θυγατέρων 
€ραν ϊδων αρρηφορουσαν 

Ayvo6eos ονν ο πάππος αν 
του παρ ωι και τρ^φομ^νος 

5θ σω[ 


55 ο^^[ 

του πατ\ρος 


6ο θησ\^ 

65 τησ . [ 
του α[ 

φη ω [ 
7θ χρον[ 


75 ρο-Α 

8ο ποδημι[α 


35 iTvy^aviv ο Θρασύβουλος- 
δια το τον πατρός και της 
μητρός ορφανον καταλ^ι 
φθηναί' τραχυ^θ€ΐς τι μοι 
SoK^i] ττρος αυτόν καλΐΐ μ 
4θ €ΐς οίκον σνγγ€νη τ€ αντοις 
οντά και καταλξλζψμζνον 
(πιτροπον νττο του Φιλομη 
λοϋ• καγω μαλα προθυμως 

ίβαδιζον και yap ην €ν ηδο 
45 νη μοι το συνδιατριβξΐν Αγνό 

(^) Col. ill 

μ^ν όντως ττιθανωι (οικ€ν 
€ί τοινυν €φην αληθή ταυτ [e 
σ-τιν οντ αν Π^ριανδρωι λν 
σιτξλοιη μάλλον αρχξΐν η ν 
95 φ €Τ€ρου αρχ]€σθαΐ' οντ αλλωι 
ovOevi τω[ν] φανλως αρχόντων 
δοκω γαρ α[ντ]ον ξφην €ν τοίΐ 
φιλτατοις [κομι\ισθαι τας αμαρ 
πας- τι yap [φιλ]τ€ρον ανδρι 
ιοο νουν (χο[ντι] πατρίδος, και 
[κ]ατα φνσιν [οι]κζΐων ανθρω 
[τήων : ι>7Γθ[λα/3]ωι/ ονν ο Αρι 
[φ]ρων αλη[θη ν]η Αι €φη Ae 
[yjeiS- και βοι^λ]ομζθα σοι μαρ 
Ι05 [τ]υρησαι ΐγω και Αδάμαντος 
[ο^τοσϊ παραγ^νομξνοι νννι 
[Πζ]ριανδρωι δια την ωμοτη 
[τ]α μβγαλη πανν σνμφοραι 
[π]€ριπ€σοντι : και ο Πισιστρα 
UO [τ]ος τινι ταντηι €φ[η :] eye u 



γαρ η[ 
ρον . [ 

^5 μν ν[ 


γουν Γ 
go αυτο[ 

Col. iv. 











n\ev φρασω' προ τ[ον γαρ] Κν 

yjr€]\ou τον TIepLav8p[ov Trjare 

pa] λαβείν την αρ•)^η[ν ^κ\ρα 

το^ν τηί 7Γθλ€ωί o[t καλο]ν 

μ]€νοί Βακχν[αδαί] σν[γγ€ν€ΐα] 

μ€]γαλη' λαβ[ορ]το9 [$€ αν] 

το]υ την αρχήν το[ντων το] 

μ€ν] πληθοί €φυγ€ τ[ ] 

. .]_ίΐ/ ολίγο[ί] δξ και[ ] 

. . •]«7γ[*']^ °^^ νΪ€19 [ ] 

. .]€ϊ'€ί[. . .]τ€σ . α[ ] 

• •]ρχο^[' • •]μ€ρ<^ί^. ] 

. .]ζνηί θ[. . .]vTe? €σ[ ] 

. .]ωι 0L €7γ[.] . ωί 5eo[ ] 

. π]ρο^ το[ν Π]ξριαν8[ρον . .] 

. .]σι μοί [7Γλ]?;σία^€[ίί' . . . 

. . .]νποτ[. .] uVep το\υ lie 

\ρια]γδρον• κ[αί] tls €ΐσα[. . . . 

.] Κξλξυσα . [. .]σ•τίνο[. . . . 

. .]v€iv ω[. . .]\€ταΐ' .[.... 

. .]η €ξ€ΐ ι[. . .]προπι[. . . . 

. .]λομαί κ[, . .] βονλ[. . . . 

. .]ίωσ7Γ€/θ[ 

. . .] . €ίΟΙ'τ[ 

. . .] . evTo[ 

145 τωγΐ 
τρα . 


Ι50 ]α[ 
155 ]νμοφ[ 


]μ€ ασ7Γ[ 

] και 7Γαλ[ 
OS €α[ 


'(Solon) before Pisistratus seized the government went abroad; for his warnings to the 
Athenians that Pisistratus w-as aiming at a tyranny failed to convince them. I however 
stayed on ; but when the tyranny of Pisistratus was already established I left the country 
and Uved in Ionia with Solon, After some time my friends were anxious for my return, and 
particularly Pisistratus, on account of our intimacy ; so as Solon urged it I went back to 
Athens. Now I had left there a boy named Thrasybulus, the son of Philomelus. I found 
him grown into a very handsome and virtuous young man, far superior in looks and 
manners to the others of his age ; for in the general debasement due to the political situa- 
tion no one had advanced to any nobility of character. He surpassed them all in horse- 
breeding and the chase and other such expensive pursuits ; and it was said against him in 
the city that he was in love with the younger daughter of Pisistratus, whom he had seen 
carrying the vessels of Athene. His grandfather Hagnotheus in whose house it happened 
that Thrasybulus, who had been bereft of both father and mother, was being brought up, 
being, I think, a little annoyed with him, invited me to his house as I was their kinsman 
and had been left guardian by Philomelus. I was very ready to go, for Hagnotheus' 
company was a pleasure to me . . .' 

i-io. This statement that just before the establishment of the tyranny of Pisistratus 
Solon left Athens and went to Ionia is not only new but conflicts with the account of 
Plutarch {Sol. 30-1), who represents Solon as refusing to fly and as living on at Athens in 
friendly relations with the usurper. The 'Αθηναίων UoXireia (14. 2) does not suggest that 
Solon retired from Athens, though on the other hand there is nothing there inconsistent 
with such a view; it is simply stated that Solon's warnings and opposition proved fruitless. 
Diogenes Laertius indeed asserts (i. 51, 62) that Solon died in Cyprus, and this statement 
may now have to be treated with more respect than heretofore. A new light is thus turned 
upon the much discussed question of the meeting between Solon and Croesus as king of 
Lydia. The usurpation of Pisistratus and the accession of Croesus to sole sovereignty are 
placed in the same year, b.c 560, and there will be no chronological objection to the 
interview described by Herodotus, if it is transferred to this period. With regard to the 
date of Solon's death, χρυνωι in 1. 10 here is too vague to build any argument upon; 
according to Heraclides Ponticus he survived the overthrow of the constitution συχνον χρόνον, 
according to Phanias of Ephesus less than two years (both ap. Plutarch, Sol. 32). 

5. 1. πΐίθαν. 

II. This construction of σπονΜζΐΐν with the infinitive is common in Aristotle, e.g. Aik. 

Pol. 38. 4 ονς avros ίσπούδασ(ν eX^el»/. 

15. KareXmov is probably for κατίλΐίπον, 
20. 1. νπ(ρίβαλ(\^ΐν. 

29-32. This is the first mention of a second daughter of Pisistratus. With αρρη- 

φορονσαν cf. PolyaenUS, Sirategem. 5. 14 θρασνμηδης ΦίΚομηλου της Πεισιστράτου θνγατρος 
(ρασθΐΐί πομπενονσαν αυτήν προσ8ραμων ίφιλησιν. Apparently the author of OUr dialogue 

either did not know of or did not accept this more romantic version, for αρρηφορονσαν 
and πομπΐΰουσαν can hardly refer to different occasions. For διαβάλλεσθαι with the 
infin. cf. Hdn. 2. 6. 10 άλλ' Snep ίφην διεβληθης μισοβασιλ^ύς tivai, but the construction is 

37. ορφανον : 1. ορφανός. 

82. All that remains of the supposed τ over the line is a rather coarse horizontal 
stroke, immediately above a break in the papyrus. 

88. The letters οστ have each had a short horizontal stroke drawn through then), 
probably by the first hand ; the doubtful ι was perhaps also deleted. 


91-114. '"This accordingly seems probable. If then," said I, "this be true, it would 
be of no more advantage to Periander to rule than be ruled by another nor to any other 
bad ruler. For I suppose," I said, " that he will reap the reward of his misdeeds among 
those dearest to him. For what is dearer to a sensible man than his country and his 
blood-relations ? " " Yes, by Zeus," struck in Ariphron, " you speak truly, and I and 
Adimantus here wish to bear you out, having just been with Periander when his cruelty 
plunged him into a terrible disaster." " What disaster ? " said Pisistratus. " I will tell 
you," he said. "Before Cypselus, the father of Periander, obtained the supremacy, the 
great clan of the Bacchiadae, as they are called, ruled the city. When he became supreme 
the majority of them fled ... a few however remained. . . ." ' 

98. \κομι\ασθαι ras αμαρτίας in the Sense of κομκΊσθαι τα eK των αμαρτιών is a CUriouS 
expression, though cf. Arist. Eih. Nic. ix. 7 κομιονμίνους ras χάριτας. 

106-9. Unless the present conversation is to be supposed to have occurred while 
Pisistratus was still a private person, which is eminently improbable, this passage plainly 
implies that Periander of Corinth was not yet dead when the tyranny of Pisistratus was 
established at Athens. The ordinary chronology places the accession of Periander in 
B.C. 625 and his death in 585, thus leaving a very considerable interval before the first 
tyranny of Pisistratus, which no one desires to put earlier than b.c. 560. According to one 
passage of Herodotus, however, Periander and Pisistratus were contemporaries; for he 
makes the former arbiter in a war between Athens and Mytilene which followed upon the 
capture of Sigeum by Pisistratus (v. 94-5). The usual method of avoiding this difficulty is 
to suppose that there were two wars with Mytilene, and that the arbitration of Periander 
occurred in the first. But for this there is no kind of evidence, and, as Beloch has pointed 
out [Rhei'm'sches Museum, vol. xlv. p. 466 sqq.), the difficulties involved in this explanation 
are hardly less than those which it attempts to solve. He himself suggests that the mistake 
of Herodotus consists in referring an arbitration by Periander in a dispute between Tenedos 
and Sigeum (Arist. Rhei. i. 15. 13) to the period of the war against Mytilene; at the same 
time Beloch considers that the chronology of Periander is quite insecure, and that he 
might with advantage be put several decades later. But other references in Herodotus 
clearly point to the earlier date, for the tyranny of Periander at Corinth synchronized with 
that of Thrasybulus at Miletus (Hdt. i. 20, v. 92), which was established at the beginning 
of the reign of Alyattes king of Lydia (i. 18-22) ; while the eclipse of the sun which ended 
the war between Alyattes and Cyaxares of Media (i. 74) provides a securely fixed point of 
departure (approximately b.c 585). Herodotus' chronology is probably past mending. 

108. μίγαλη ττανν σνμφοραι : to what this refers is not clear. As the Bacchiadae were 
in some way involved, the misfortune is apparently not one of those ordinarily ascribed by 
tradition to the private life of Periander. 

115• Cf. Hdt. V. 92 ην όΧιγαρχίη, κηΐ ούτοι ΒακχιάΒαι καλεομίνοι evepov την ττολιν' iSlSoaav δί 

κα\ ηγοντο (ξ αλλήλων. It is doubtful whether the mistake of the original hand in the 
spelling of the name was anything more than υ for t ; but there is barely room in the 
lacuna for [abai]. 

119. και[: the third letter is quite uncertain; perhaps κατ[(μίΐναν \ ατΓ(λ](ΐπ[ο]ν ow. The 
question of the reading here is complicated by the doubt concerning the position of the frag- 
ment containing the first part of 11. 120 sqq. Lines 125-6 and 127-8 will suit the arrangement 
adopted in the text, which moreover brings out a column of exactly the required length. 
In 1. 120 this fragment contains the doubtful et and part of the π; the rest of the π (which 
apart from the fragment could be read as τ) is on the upper piece. Another break 
occurs between 11. 133-4, but here the junction is almost certain. The latter parts of 


11. 128 ] τ(Γ (ΐσα[ ... 132 ]βου\[ are also on a detached fragment the position of which, though 
probable from the appearance of the papyrus, is by no means secure. 

150-63. This fragment from the bottom of a column very likely belongs to Col. iv; 
it does not appear possible to find a place for it in Col. iii. 

665. History of Sicily. 
Fr. (a) 105 X 4-6, Fr. {b) 10-3 χ 4-6 cm. Plate I. 

These fragments, which belong evidently to the same column, of which 
they formed the upper and lower portions respectively, are notwithstanding 
their small size of no slight interest and importance. They contain an abstract 
or summary of events in Sicily, the different items, which are stated in the 
concisest manner, being marked off by paragraph! and further distinguished 
from each other by the protrusion of the first lines into the left margin. The 
papyrus was a regular literary roll, written in a fine uncial hand, which bears 
a very strong resemblance to that of the Oxyrhynchus papyrus of the Προοίμια 
Αημηγορίκά (facsimile in P. Oxy. I, p. 54), and also to that of the Bacchylides 
papyrus, to which it presents a still closer parallel than was provided by the 
Demosthenes MS. We should assign it, like the Demosthenes, to the second 
century A.D. ; an earlier date is not at all likely. Probably this is part 
of an epitome of a continuous history of Sicily, and it may well be that, as 
Blass thinks, the work epitomized was the lost History of Timaeus. 

The period to which the fragments refer seems to be that immediately 
following the general overthrow of the tyrannies in the Sicilian cities which 
took place about the year 465 B.C. (Diod. xi. 68. 5). This period is indicated 
by the frequent mentions of conflicts with the ^4vol, by whom are meant the 
mercenaries settled in the cities by the tyrants as a support of their rule. 
Diodorus, who is the sole authority for the history of this time, narrates the 
course of the hostilities at Syracuse between these new comers and the older 
citizens (xi. 72, 76) ; and implies that Syracuse was not peculiar in this respect : — 
'Almost all the cities,' he says (76. 5), *. . . with one consent came to terms with 
the strangers {ξ^νοή settled there.' The papyrus fills in some of the intermediate 
details passed over by the historian. We hear of an expedition of ξ^νοι from 
Enna and Cacyrum against Gela, which received aid from Syracuse. This was 
apparently followed by overtures from the $ivoL to the Syracusans (cf. note on 
1. 5), which, however, proved ineffectual, for the next event is a battle between 
them. Shortly afterwards the mercenaries settled at Minoa were defeated 



by the combined forces of Syracuse and Agrigentum. The activity displayed 
by Syracuse warrants the inference that she had herself already got the upper 
hand of her own ζΐνοι, who, as Diodorus relates, were finally defeated in a 
pitched battle. The campaign of the Syracusans against Catana mentioned at 
this time by Diodorus (76. 3) is part of the same anti-foreign movement. But 
hostilities seem to have extended beyond the opposing sections of the various 
city states. The fragments also supply information of an expedition of 
Agrigentum against Crastus, and an engagement subsequently occurred at the 
latter place between the Agrigentines and forces from Himera and Gela, which 
may be supposed to have come to the assistance of Crastus. These new 
facts may not be very weighty, but they convey a more adequate idea than 
was before possible of the period of unrest, the στάσα^ and ταραχαί, which 
intervened between the overthrow of the tyrannies and the establishment of 
general peace. 

[τω]ν €v Ομφα[λωί και 
Κακνρωι ^€ί'[ωΓ em 
[FjeXav στρα[τ€ία 

βοη[Θ]€ΐα ^νρα[κ]ο[σιων 
5 Γ€[λω]£θίΓ και ττ . [. . . 
των ζ^νων ττρο? [Χνρα 

μάχη Χυρακοσ\ιων και 

των ξ€ν[ω]ν [ 

ΙΟ Γλαυκών 7re[ 

[ Μ 

Κραστον στρ[ατ€ΐα 

η γ€νομ€ν[η 7Γ€ρι 
15 Κραστον Ιμ€ρα[ιων 

και Τΐλωιων προ9 Λ[κρα 
γαντινον^ μα^η 

ω? οι την Μινωιαν 
των ^ξνων οιι^ι 
2 ο ζοντ€9 ϋπ Ακρα 

γαντινων και ^[νρα 
κοσιων ηιρ€θτ][σαν 
[. Ακρ]αγαν[τιν . . . 

Ακρα[γαν]τινων em 

Ι. θμφα[λωι '. cf. Cic. Verr. 4-48 Hennensium nemore, qui locus . . . umbilicus Siciliae 
nominatur^ and the spurious line in Callim. H. in Cer. 6. 15 rpis δ' eVl κάΚλίστης νησον 8ράμ(! 

ομφάλον Ενναν. 

2. Κακνρωι: the site of this town, which is mentioned by Ptolemy, has been placed 
at the modern village of Cassaro, near Palazzolo ; the present passage seems to indicate that 
it should be looked for further west, and the position given in Kiepert's Topogr. Hist. Atlas 
is probably not far from the truth. 

5. All that remains of the letter at the end of the line is a straight stroke which 



suggests e, η, ΟΓ t. ρ IS not impossible, but there is no trace of the tail, and we therefore 
hesitate to introduce πρ[€σβηα, which is otherwise attractive, into the text. 

10. Γλαυκών is evidently a personal name, but nothing is known of this bearer of it. 

11. The gap between the two fragments probably extends to about lo lines, but 
it may be larger. 

13. Crastus is described by Steph. Byz. as rroKis Σικελίας των Σικανων, citing the SiKekiKU 
of Philistus. Its position is unknown ; no doubt it was in the neighbourhood of Agri- 

22. The vestiges of the letter after ψρε do not suggest Θ, but can hardly be said to be 
inconsistent with that letter, since there is no other example of a ^ in the text. If the shape 
of the θ Λvas tall and narrow, as in the Bacchylides papyrus, the effect of mutilation 
might be that actually presented in the fragment. Of the supposed η only a small speck 

23. A fresh entry probably commences at this line, and in that case there would 

be one or even two letters before Ακρ]^αγαν[τιν . ., e.g. η or τό 'Ακρ\αγαι^τίνων. 

666. Aristotle, npoTpenriKOs. 

27-2 X 9'8 cm. 

A sheet containing two practically entire columns, preceded by the ends of 
lines from a third, the text of which includes a lengthy passage quoted by 
Stobaeus (Flor. 3. 54) from Aristotle, and now generally assigned to the 
Aristotelian dialogue UporpeTTTLKOs or Exhortation to Philosophy (Rose, Fr. 57)• 
Besides additions at the beginning and end of the excerpt the papyrus supplies 
a sentence omitted by Stobaeus in the middle of his quotation. The evidence 
of these supplementary passages, though bringing no direct proof of the identity 
of the treatise of which they formed part, tend to support the attribution to the 
Τίροτρξτττικόί, in particular 11. 161 sqq., where the foregoing argument on the 
worthlessness of external goods as such results in a recommendation of philo- 
sophy (cf. note on 1. 170). 

The text is written in narrow columns (width 4 cm.), placed very close 
together, in rather small informal uncials, which we should date about the 
middle or latter part of the second century. No breathings or accents occur, 
and stops are also absent, the sentences being divided off by paragraph! only. 
The common angular sign is used to fill up short lines. Parts of the initial 
letters of the first few lines of a fourth column remain, but all that is recog- 
nizable is a doubtful e opposite 1. 118 and an ω opposite 1. 120. The papyrus 
is dirty and rubbed in places. 

The appended collation is derived from Hense's edition of Stobaeus, iii. 



3. 25. The MSS. referred to are the Escurialensis Mendozae (M), Parisinus (A), 
and Marcianus as embodied in the edition of Trincavelli (Tr.). Other authorities 
are Maximus Monachus, Gnomohgium, c. 17 (= Max.), where the earlier part 
of the quotation in Stobaeus is given with some slight textual variations, and the 
Florilegium Laurentianum (Laur.), where the extract of Maximus reappears 
(Meineke, Stobaeus, iv. 225, 25). The papyrus sometimes supports one, some- 
times another, of these witnesses, and occasionally corrects them all. It is, 
however, itself far from being impeccable, and in one or two places where it 
is the sole authority emendation is necessary. 





Col. i. 










23 lines lost. 

Col. ii. 

re ττραττξΐν των 
δεόντων τι προ 
6ο αιρουμ^νου^ 
κωλνηι Sio δ€ί 

την τούτων 
θεωρούσαν ατν 
χίαν φζνγζΐν 

6ζ και νομιζξΐν 
την €νδαιμονιαν 
ουκ €v τωι πολ 
λα Κ€κτησθαί γι 
ν€σθαι μάλλον 

γα η €v τωι ττω? 
την ψνχην δια 
Κ€ΐσθαι και γαρ 

σώμα ον το λαμ 

ττραι €σθητι Κ€ 
75 κοσμημ^νον 

φαιή τΐ9 αν €[ι 

ναι μακαριον 

αλ[λα] το την ν[γ€ΐ 

αν €χον και σ[που 
8ο δaιωs διακ€[ιμ]€ 

νον καν μηδβν 
G 2 

Col. iii. 
Ϊ15 δια τη9 ψνχΊ]^ αγα 
θων ττλζονασασα 
€1 αντων €ΐναι 
τα κτήματα τταν 
των αισχιστον 

Ι20 ωστΓ€ρ γαρ et τίί 
των οιΚ€των 
των αυτόν χβί 
ρων €ΐη καταγζ 
λαστοί αν γένοιτο 

125 "^ο^ αυτόν τρόπον 
019 πλζονος αξιαν 
την κτησιν ζΐνα[ι 
συμβφηκ^ν τηί 
(δια? φυσ€ω9 αθ[λι 

130 ου9 TovTOvs €ΐνα[ι 
δζΐ νομιζζΐν 

και τούτο κατ α 
[Χ\ηθζΐαν ουτω9 
[€]χ€ΐ τικτ€ΐ γα[ρ 
135 ®y φησιν η παρ 
οιμια Kopos μί[ν 
νβριν απαιδζ[υ 
σια δι μ€τ ξ^ου 



] . VL παρ 
50 ]αυτων 
]ση yap 

] . κυων 
]ν όταν 




των προ€ΐρημ€ 
νων αντωί παρηι 
τον αυτόν ^[e] τρο 

85 "τον και ψνχην 
€αν η ι πξτταιδξν 
μ€νη την τοιαυ 
την και τον τοιον 
τον ανθρωπον 

9© ίνδαιμονα προσ 
αγορξντ€ον ^στιν 
ουκ αν TOLS €ΚΤος 
η ι λαμττρως κβ 
95 αυτό? μηδξνο? 

αξΐ09 cuv ουδ€ γαρ 
[ι]ππον €αν ψαλια 
γ^ρυσα και σκ€υ 
ην €)ζτ]ΐ πολυτ€ 

ιοο λη φαυ\θ9 α>ν 
τον τοιούτον 
α^ιον TIVOS νομι 
ζομζν [[rti/oy νο 
μιζομ^ν"^ €ΐναι 

Ι05 αλλ eav διακ€ΐμ€ 
νος (rji) σπουδαιως 
τούτον μάλλον 

χωρΐ9 $€ των €ΐ 
Ι ΙΟ ρημξνων συ μ 

βαιν€ί T01S μηδξ 
VOS αξιοΐ9 ουσιν 
όταν τυχωσι χο 
[ρηγι]ας και των 

σια? ανοιαν to[is 

140 γαρ διακ€ΐμ€[νοις 
τα vrepi την ψυ 
yrjv κακώς ου 
τ€ ττλουτος ουτ ι 
σ)(υ9 ουτ€ καλλο? 

145 "^^^ αγαθών €στ[ιν 
αλλ οσωι irep αν α[υ 
ται μάλλον αι δια 
θ€σ•€ΐ9 καθ υ7τ[€ρ 
βολην υπαρξ[ωσι 

τζο τοσουτω μ€ΐζ[ω 
και ττλξΐω τον 

βλαπτουσι {^αν) ai/[ei; 
φρονησ€ω9 [ττα 

155 ραγ€νωντα[ι το 
γαρ μη παιδ[ι μα 
γαιραν τουτ [eori 
το μη τ 019 φ[αν 
λοίί την €ξου[σ•ι 

1 6ο αν €γχ^ζΐριζ€[ίν 

την δζ φρον[ησιν 
anavTCS αν ο[μολο 
γησ€ΐαν eij το [μαν 
θαν€ΐν γιγνίσθ[αι (/cat) 
165 ζητΐΐν ων Tas [δυ 
ναμ€ΐ9 φιλοσοφ^ια 
πξρίξίληφβν ω[σ• 

Τ€ ττω? ουκ απ[ρο 
φασιστώ? φιλο[σο 
17© φητ€ον €στι και 


58-170. '. . . nor prevent them when purposing to do a right action. We ought to 
be warned by the spectacle of their plight to avoid it ourselves (?), and should regard 
happiness not as dependent upon the acquisition of wealth rather than upon a particular 
state of the soul. Bodily blessings would not be held to consist in adornment with 
magnificent apparel, but in the possession of health and in sound condition, even in the 
absence of the other advantages which I have mentioned. In the same way happiness 
is to be attributed to the disciplined soul and to a man of such a character, not to the man 
who is magnificently supplied with externals and is in himself worthless. We do not 
consider a bad horse to be of any value if it has gold chains and costly trappings ; we 
rather give our praise to one that is in sound condition. Besides what we have said, too, 
worthless persons, when they obtain wealth and value their possessions more than the 
goods of the soul, are in the worst case of all. For just as a man who was inferior to his 
own domestics would be ridiculous, so those who come to find their property of more value 
than their own nature ought to be held miserable. And this is the truth of the matter, 
for " satiety breeds insolence " as the proverb says, and want of discipline combined with 
power breeds folly. In a bad state of the soul neither wealth nor strength nor beauty 
are good things, but the greater the abundance of these qualities, the more do they injure 
their possessor, if they are unaccompanied by reason. " Do not give a child a knife," 
is as much as to say, " Do not entrust bad men with power." Now reason, as all would 
admit, exists for the acquisition of knowledge, and seeks ends the means to which are 
contained in philosophy ; why then should philosophy not be pursued without hesitation 

61-4. This sentence might be correct if, as Diels suggests, θίωρουσαν referred to some 
preceding substantive such as η των σπον8αίων alptais. But more probably some correction 
is required ; the simplest perhaps is to emend θίωρονσαν to βίωρονντα or θΐωρουνταί, with the 
sense given in our translation. Other expedients would be to read τοΰτ ου for τούτων, 
' the wretched state of mind which neglects this,' or to insert τι after τούτων, ' which pays 
great consideration to any of these external things,' but the latter interpretation of θΐωρονσαν 
is hardly so natural. 

65. The extracts of Stobaeus and Maximus Mon. begin after και. νομίζη 8e Μ, νόμιζΐ 

A, νομίζΐΐν Tr., νομίζομΐν 8e Max., νομίζίΐν del Laur. 

68. yivfadai : SO Max., Laur. ; γίγνΐσθαι MA, Tr. 

69. μάλλον η : μάλλον δ{() ΜΑ, Max., Laur., άλλ' eV Tr. 

70-2. πω! την ψυχην: την ψ. fv ΜΑ^ τη ψυχή (υ Α\ Tr., Max., Laur. Above the ω of 
πωα there are in the papyrus some faint vestiges, which if not accidental might perhaps 
represent a cursively written eu ; but we have considered this too doubtful for insertion in 
the text. In any case πως has not been cancelled, and if the intention was to indicate 
a reading ev πω? the eu should have been written further to the left. 

73. σώμα ου το : SO ΜΑ, Max., Laur.,* ουδέ το σώμα αυτό Tr. 

76, Ttf αν: SO MA^ Max., Laur.; m ευ A^ tis Tr. 

78. Considerations of space made it more probable that vyiav or υγπαν (A, Tr., Max., 
Laur.) was written than νγΐΐίαν (Μ). 

82. προίίρημΐνων : SO MSS. exccpt Max., where παρακΐΐμίνων is found. 

85. ψυχην. so M, Tr., Max., Laur.; ψυχή A. 

86. tav ηι πίπ. : SO Μ, Tr., Max., Laur. ; eveoTiv Ιδΐΐν nen. Tr. 
88. rat : Laur. substitutes els. Toioxkov is omitted in Max. 
92. Tois : so MA, Laur. ; tis Tr., Max. 

eKTos : so MA, Max., Laur. ; i< τούτων Tr. 


93. Χαμπρως '. SO MA^, Max., Laur. ; λαμπρός A^ Tr. 

Κΐχορηγημΐνος : κίκοσμημίνος MSS. (^κ^κοσμίνος Laur., putting \αμπρωί after Κ(κοσμ^. 

95• avTos : Max, and Laur. add Se. 

96. ουδέ : so A'^ (and conjecturally Meineke) ; ουτΐ PJ and the other MSS. 

97. fav i^aKia '. iav ψίλλια MA, Max., Laur. ; καν ψίλλια Tr. 

98-9. A places €χη before χρυσά. 

IOC. The papyrus does not support Meineke's insertion of αυτός before φαύλος which 
is adopted by Rose. 

105. fav: ος αν MSS. except Laur., which has m av and adds ό before σπουδαίος. 

io6. The insertion of »;« (so MSS.) is necessary. 

109-19. The excerpts of Stobaeus and Maximus omit this passage, and unfortunately 
its meaning and construction are obscured by a corruption, Appareridy πλβοι/ασασαβ» con- 
ceals something like πλίονυς άξια, and we may either add συμβη (cf. 11. 125-7) ^^'^ place 
a comma after κτήματα, when the sense will be as in the translation above, or connecting 

των δια της ψυχής αγαθών with τυχωσι insert δ Or οπΐρ (sO Diels) before πάντων αισχιστον, ' It 

sometimes happens that worthless persons have both external and mental gifts, and value 
the former above the latter, which is the most disgraceful thing of all,' Corruptio optimi 
pessima. The latter remedy produces an easier construction and a more pointed sentence. 

122. των is omitted in the MSS, 

126, πλΐονος; πλίΐΌΐΌΓ MSS, 

128, συμβίβηκΐν: σ~υμβΐβηΚ€ M.SS. 

130. τούτους ftva[i: SO MSS. except A, which transposes the words, 

131, The exceφt of Maximus ends here, 

150— I. μ€ΐ^[ω] και πλίΐω : και ττλείω κα\ μΐίζω Tr., πλύω και μίίζω ΜΑ, 

153-5• Stobaeus here has χωρ\ς φρονησΐως παραγΐνόμίναι, which is the conclusion of his 
quotation. In 1, 153 we have supposed that the repetition of av led to the loss of eav. 
To read {e)av [χωρίς would make the line too long, 

155-60. Cf. lamblichus, Protrepticus, 2 βλαβερά μάλιστα τροφής μΐν αφθονία τω το 
σώμα, κτησΐως δε τω την ψ^υχην 8ιακίΐμ€νω κακώς, κα\ επισφαλεί και δμοιον μαινομίνω 8οΰναι μάχαιραν 

κα\ μοχθηρω δύναμιν, which looks like an imitation of the passage before us. On the close 
connexion of part of the treatise of lamblichus with the Aristotelian dialogue cf. By water in 
Journal 0/ Philology, ii, 55 sqq. 

164. There would hardly be room for the necessary και after -γιγνΐσ^^αι^ but the 
homOioteleuton may easily have caused its omission; cf. note on 153-5. 

169. φϊΚοσοφητΐον was the key-note of the ΐίροτρ(πτικός, as of the similarly named work 
of lamblichus : cf, Bywater, ibid., pp. 68-9. 

667. Aristoxenus ? 

18x8 i-zw. 

Parts of two columns, the former of which comprises thirty complete lines, 
containing an analysis of certain musical scales. To the authorship of the 
fragment we have no real clue. It is natural in such a case to think first of 


Aristoxenus, the greatest name among the ancient writers upon musical theory ; 
and there is no reason why the piece should not come from his 'Αρμονικά Στοιχεία 
or some similar work. But on the other hand there is no particular reason why 
it should, for any treatise on the same subject might include some such dis- 
cussion as that found here. The papyrus probably falls within the third century. 
It is written in a clear semi-uncial hand, without stops or other lection marks ; 
a short space, which is indicated in the transcript below, is used to divide the 
several sentences. 

The highly technical language employed in the fragment can hardly be 
understood or discussed without some preliminary explanation of the composi- 
tion of the Greek scale. We must here acknowledge our great indebtedness 
to Mr. H. S. Macran, to whose excellent edition of the Harmonics of Aristoxenus 
the reader is referred for further information. 

The fundamental unit which was the basis of the Greek scale in all its 
later developments was the tetrachord, typically consisting of two dieses^ i.e. 
semitones or smaller intervals, and a complement, or the interval remaining 
when the dieses were subtracted from the concord of the fourth. The magnitude 
of the three intervals determined the genus of the tetrachord as enharmonic or 
chromatic, the enharmonic variety containing two quarter-tones and a ditone, 
and the chromatic other divisions, e.g. two semitones and a tone and a half. 
The more familiar diatonic tetrachord, composed of a semitone and two tones, 
was distinguished by having only one diesis. Larger scales were effected by 
the arrangement or combination (αρμονία) of such tetrachords in two ways, (a) 
by conjunction (συναφή), when the last note of one tetrachord coincided with 
the first note of the next ; or (δ) by disjunction (aioCevfis), when the tetrachords 
were separated from each other by a tone. The combination of a pair of 
tetrachords in these two methods produced respectively the heptachord and 
octachord scales of the seven-stringed and eight-stringed lyres. Further 
additions resulted in what was known as the perfect scale, which took the 
following form (/ = tone, d = diesis, and c = complement) : — 



νηταιν (συνημμίνούν) 

d ^ d ' c 


d ^ d ' 



1 d ' 


νητων (δΐΐζ(υ•γμ(νων) ντΓ(ρ(}ολαίων 

^ v^ 

ί ' d ^ d ^ c ' d ^ d ^ c 


or in modern notation : — 

μΐσαιν συναφή νητων (σχινημμίνοιν) νπΐρβολαίων 

- rj Ο 

ντατοητ διά^ίν£κ νητων {^κζ^υ^ μίνων") 

It will be observed that this system diverges at a certain point into a 
conjunct and a disjunct scheme, the heptachord scale being the basis of the 
one (the ' lesser complete system ') and the octachord that of the other (the 
' greater complete system '). The additional note at the bottom was technically 
known as the ττροσλαμβανόμζνοί. 

To come now to the passage before us. The writer is examining and 
locating different scales, and has proposed for consideration a heptachord 

scale of the form — y~• —■ ' — j—' τ^ • A scale of this type 

a a c a a c 

would be enharmonic or chromatic (11. 1-2) and also a conjunctive arrangement 

(11. 2 sqq.). Such conjunction would occur in three places in the perfect scale 

(11, 10 sqq. ; see the scheme above), i. e. in the tetrachords υττατών and μ^σών, 

μζσών and νητων (συνημμένων), νητων {^ζζ^νγμΐνων) and νττ^ρβολαίων. Disjunction, 

on the other hand, is only found in the case of the tetrachords μζσων and νητών 

{bL€ζ€vγμ4vωv). To the given scheme is then (11. 19 sqq.) added at the lower 

extremity a tone, corresponding to the ττροσλαμβανόμξνοί (see above), and the 

resulting eight-note system is said to occur in the same three combinations as 

before (11. 22 sqq.). Here, however, a difficulty arises, for as will be seen on 

reference to the perfect scale such a scheme occurs in it not thrice but twice 

only, i. e. in the two halves of the ' greater complete system.' The simplest 

remedy is to suppose a defect in the text ; cf. note ad loc. 

Col. i. Col. iL 

fiiv ξναρμονιον η χρω «[ 

ματικον €π€ίτα €v τ[ 

συναφή κζΐμ^νον €ΐ λ[ 

Τ€ ολη €ΙΤ€ και €V μ€ λ[ 

5 pet και eiT€ Sia των e 35 ''[ 


|j;y μ^ΧωΒοιτο τα πολ p[ 

λα €ίΘ ντΓξρβατως η «[ ^ 

μ€ν γαρ διαζ€νξΐ9 act τ . [ 

νητα^ και μςσα^ ίφαί /ί[ 

ΙΟ Ρ€Τ0 ποΐ€ΐν την Se 4° ^[ 

σνναφην συνφαιν^ /ί[ 

κοινωνών τριωρ e[ 

συστημάτων ώστε 5[ 

σημαινίΐν €ξαυτη9 μ[ 

ΐζ €v τοπωι τινι ττοτε 45 Μ 

ροί' δύναται νττατα? α . [ 

/cat μ€σα9 [[e]] 77 i'[[a]]?7ray τα[ 

iftti μ€σα^ η νπ^ρβο 7γ[ 

λαία? καί νητας €στ<ο €«[ 

20 Βζ και τονιαιον erri ^ο δ . [ 

το βαρύ προσκ€ΐμζνον αι . [ 

em τουτοΐ9 κοινον αισ[ 

γαρ €σται το σχήμα του κα[ 

το του οκτάχορδου δ€ΐ[ 

25 των ξίρημβνων τρι 55 f^^i [ 

ων συστημάτων κα δ€[ 

[θ]α7Γ€ρ eyefero γνω λα_ί/^ι[ 

ριμον και ev τοΐ9 α TotJ^ 

νωτ€ρον οποτ€ προ ^V^[ 

30 φ€ρομ€νον σύστημα 6ο νον[ 

K€t [ 

1-30. '[Such a scale is in the first place] enharmonic or chromatic, in the second 
place it is a conjunctive system, whether its melodic succession be complete or partial, and 
mainly consecutive or broken. For disjunction was shown always to occur in the " lower " 
and " middle " tetrachords, while conjunction was found to enter into three scales, so that 
it did (not) immediately signify the region in which it lay, i.e. whether it applied to the 
"upper" and "middle" tetrachords or the "lower" and "middle" or the "lower" 
and "extreme." Now let a note be added to these at the bass extremity; then this 
scheme of the octachord will be common to (two of) the three scales already mentioned, 
as was proved in the foregoing argument when a scale was propounded . . .' 

2-7. μ€λω8οιτο is to be taken with ο'Κη and ev μιρίΐ as well as with 8ia των (ξης and 


νπ(ρβατ(ύί. Scales might be curtailed either by diminishing their compass, i.e. dropping 
notes at the extremities {ev μ(ρ(ΐ), or by omitting inner notes [νπΐρβατως) ; cf. Aristox. Harm. 

p. 17. 30 (Meibom). and Aristid. Quint, pp. 15—6 τά μίν αυτών eVrt σννΐχη, ως τα δια των ίξής 
φθόγγων, τα δ' νπ(ρβατά, ως τά δια των μη ΐφΐξης μίλωδουμενα, For συναφή and διάζΐυζκ 

generally cf. Aristox. Harm. p. 58. 15 sqq. τα πολλά in 1. 6 seems otiose. 

13 sqq. The construction and sense of this passage are not very clear. If the words 
are to be left as they stand, something like belv ημάς must be understood with σημαίνον ; but 
the change of subject is ver}' awkward, and we prefer to suppose with Mr. Macran that μη 
was dropped out before σήμαιναν. The similarity of the following syllable ση would help to 
account for the loss. 

15. €v τοπωι τινι: sc. κΐΊται ή συναφή or κάσθαι την σνναφην, according as τινι is accented 
Tivt or Tivi. τόπος means technically region or direction of the scale. 

22 sqq. This sentence is the crux of the fragment, for, as already explained in the 
introduction, the series of notes apparently indicated only occurs twice in the perfect scale, 
not three times as here stated by the author. The easiest way out of the difficulty is 
to adopt Mr. Macran's suggestion that δυοιι» has fallen out of the text before των (ψημένων. 

668. Epitome of Livv, XXXVII-XL and XLVIII-LV. 

Height 26 cm. Plate VI (Col. viii). 

Literary papyri from Egypt which are now numbered by hundreds have 
hitherto, with a few trifling exceptions, been Greek ; and Latin literature has 
been represented only by a small piece of Vergil and a few unimportant 
historical or juristic fragments. The discovery of an important literary text in 
Latin is therefore a welcome novelty. This consists of parts of eight columns 
of an epitome of a history of Rome, the events being grouped together in strict 
chronological order under the different consular years, and the division of the 
several books being noted. That the author of the history in question was 
Livy, though not stated, is obvious from a comparison of the arrangement of 
the books as numbered in the papyrus with that of the corresponding books in 
Livy's work. 

The epitome is written on the recto ; on the verso is the text of part of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews (657). The presence of the latter enables us to decide 
the relative position of the different fragments of the Livy with the exception 
of a few small pieces, two of which had been gummed over places of the 
recto in order to strengthen the roll, and one of which seems to have been cut 
off from a much later portion of it (11. 218-25). The handwriting is a medium- 
sized upright uncial, with some admixture of minuscule forms {b, d), and 
belongs to the same class as the Vergil fragment (P. Oxy. I, Plate viii) and 


the Bodleian Chronicles of Eusebius (Palaeographical Soc. ii. Plate 130), but 
is an earlier example of the mixed style than has hitherto been known. The 
papyrus was found with cursive documents varying from the second to the 
fourth century (chiefly third), and the text of the Epistle to the Hebrews is 
certainly not later than the fourth century (cf. introd. to 657). The Livy 
epitome must therefore have been written not later than the beginning of the 
fourth century, and it more probably belongs to the third. Abbreviations are 
commonly employed in praenomina, in official titles such as cos.^pr., trib. pl.y 
and liber in the headings is written Hb. Other abbreviations are rare ; but 
cf. 11. 15 pass{a), 132 Masiniss{ae), 207 omnib{us). A middle point is placed 
after abbreviations, but there are no stops. Each column consists of 27-28 
lines which are broad and contain on an average 37 letters, but the ends 
are very uneven although the scribe has no objection to dividing a word 
between two lines. The lines which mention the consuls for the year project 
by about three letters into the left margin. In spite of the handsome appearance 
of the MS., which has a broad margin above and below the calligraphic writing 
and is certainly not the work of a schoolboy, the text is extraordinarily corrupt. 
Mistakes in proper names, the occasional omissions of letters, and easy palaeo- 
graphical errors such as the confusion of c and g (e. g. 1. 27 intergessit) are not 
surprising; but forms such as coniurium for connubium (1. 17), fictie grimonibus 
for fictis criminibus (1. 72), planus for primus (1. 217), and still more pug- 
namentasi (? Pergamenos missi, 1. iii), trigem reddeterbuit (? . . . ens deterruit^ 
1. 184), show that the scribe understood little of what he was writing. It is 
strange that having swallowed such monstrosities he should have in a few 
places taken the trouble to make minor corrections, Chartaginientium e. g. being 
altered to Chartaginiensium in 1. 22, fodem to fidem in 1. 95, and the super- 
fluous s of Lussitanorum in 1. 187 being erased. The epitome briefly chronicles 
events one after the other in the barest manner with no attempt at connexion 
or literary style, thereby presenting a marked contrast to the extant epitome of 
Livy ; but this bald, strictly chronological arrangement hardly excuses the 
grammatical errors both of accidence and syntax which are scattered through- 
out the text. The lack of confidence which the scribe's Latin necessarily 
inspires, coupled with the length of the lines, renders the task of restoring the 
lacunae, which occur in nearly every line, exceptionally difficult, and we have 
generally abstained from conjectures which did not seem fairly certain. Yet in 
spite of all these drawbacks, and though it is just when it reaches a new and 
therefore specially interesting fact that the papyrus is apt to present unusual 
obstacles to interpretation, the historical value of the new epitome is considerable, 
as will presently be shown. 


The papyrus falls into two main divisions, the first (Cols, i-iii) covering 
Books 37-40, where Livy's history is extant, the second (Cols, iv-viii) covering 
Books 48-55, of which only an epitome constructed on quite other lines has 
been preserved. The first section, which deals with events between B, C. 190 
and 179 and necessarily contains no new information, is chiefly interesting 
because it enables us to see the principles on which the epitome was composed, 
and hence to form a better estimate of the value of the second section, where 
no comparison with the actual work of Livy is possible. When allowances are 
made for the point of view of the compiler, the impression which he leaves is by 
no means unfavourable. Being limited to the barest catalogue of actual events, 
he naturally ignores Livy's discussions of origins and causes as well as speeches, 
but he does not omit any of the more important occurrences. With regard to 
the less striking incidents his choice is capricious ; he tends to insert notices of 
picturesque stories, e.g. that of Ortiagon's wife (11. 14-7), the tents in the forum 
(11. 60-3), Theoxena (11. 70-1), even when rather trivial ; and the amount of 
space which he devotes to an event is often in inverse proportion to its im- 
portance. The account of the war in Ambracia, to which Livy gives nine 
chapters, is for instance dismissed in two words (1. 13). It is noticeable that he 
is more interested in home affairs than the author of the extant epitome, who in 
Books 37-40 mentions fewer events though entering into more details about 
them. The language of the papyrus is in the main borrowed from Livy, from 
whom whole phrases and even clauses are reproduced (e. g. in 11, 78-80), but the 
epitomizer frequently summarizes Livy in his own words (e.g. 11. 8-10) — a 
process which sometimes leads to apparent errors (cf. 1. 3, note). Twice he 
seems to have distorted Livy's chronology through combining two separate 
notices (cf. notes on 11. 7 and 17), but in other respects the chronology of the 
papyrus faithfully represents that of Livy. 

After Col. iii a good many columns are lost which contained the epitome 
of Books 41-7. With Col. iv begins the second and important section of the 
epitome, giving a few lines from the end of Book 48 and most of Books 49-55, 
Col. iv-vi and vii-viii are continuous, but between Cols, vi and vii one column 
is lost, as is proved by the lacuna in the Epistle to the Hebrews at the corre- 
sponding point. Books 50, 54, and ^^ are the best preserved, then come 49 and 
51. Of Book 53 we have only the beginnings of lines, and Book ^"^, which was 
treated at exceptional length, is spoilt by the loss of a whole column. The 
period with which the papyrus deals, B.C. 150-137, is one of great interest. 
Abroad there were the Third Punic, Fourth Macedonian (against Pseudophilippus), 
Achaean, and Spanish Wars, and at home events were leading up to the 
Gracchan revolution. The existing authorities are far from satisfactory. For 


foreign affairs the only sources of the first rank are the fragments of Polybius 
and the extant epitome of Livy. Where these fail we are dependent mainly 
upon Appian, supplemented occasionally by such writers as Valerius Maximus, 
Florus, Eutropius, and Orosius. Of the internal history almost nothing is known 
except what is to be gleaned from the epitome of Livy and some references in 
Cicero. Thus wherever the papyrus supplements the existing epitome, the 
information is extremely welcome, and fortunately they differ from each other 
in two important respects. The extant epitome (henceforth called Epit.) is 
a connected narrative, and though the sequence of events is chronological to 
the same extent as the original history, the epitomizer has not thought it worth 
while to make clear to which year every event recorded belongs. The papyrus 
on the other hand being arranged on strict chronological principles, not only 
do we learn the precise year to which each event mentioned in it was assigned 
by Livy, but the dates for the parallel portions of Epit. can now be exactly 
determined, a proceeding which entails several changes in the chronology 
which Epit. has hitherto been supposed to prove. Secondly, though Epit. 
is as a rule much longer than the papyrus because it often describes events in 
greater detail, the brief summary in the latter frequently includes events which 
are passed over in Epit. Some of these are naturally trivial (e.g. 11. 84-5, 
1 1 1-5, and 164-6), but others are quite important. The proportion allotted 
to the different books in Epit. is very uneven. Thus Book 49 in Epit. 
occupies a good deal of space, the epitomizer entering into some detail both 
with regard to the Third Punic War and the rise of the pretender in Macedonia. 
Beside this the account of Book 49 in the papyrus (11. 87-105) is very meagre, 
though even so it mentions at least one event which does not occur in Epit. 
On the other hand Book 53 of Epit. is dismissed in a few lines, the author 
apparently attaching little importance to the events of B. C. 143-1, and Book 54 
(b. C. 141-139) does not occupy much space. Here the papyrus is considerably 
fuller than Epit., the proportion assigned to each book being more equal. Which 
of the two epitomes was constructed first is uncertain. The extant one is now 
generally considered to have been composed not earlier than the second century, 
and Zangemeister {Festschr. d. xxxvi philol. Versamml. 1882, pp. 86 sqq.) would 
assign it to the fourth, while the author of the compilation in the papyrus no 
doubt lived in the second or third century, when chronological epitomes were 
much in vogue in Egypt ; cf. 12, 665, and the Strassburg fragment edited by 
Keil. The numerous errors in the text show that we have to deal with a copy 
some degrees removed from the original composition ; but the interval of time 
need not be long, as is shown by the Oxyrhynchus fragment of Julius Africanus' 
Κεστοί (412), which though written within about fifty years of the composition of 



that work is already quite corrupt. The discovery of an epitome of Livy in 
which the names of the consuls in the ablative case are prefixed to the events 
of each year goes far to confirm an acute conjecture of Mommsen {Abh. d. k. 
Sachs. Ges. viii. p. 552), who inferred from the internal evidence of Cassiodorus 
and Orosius that an epitome of such a character, rather than Livy's complete 
work, lay at the basis of those authors' compilations ; the papyrus is, however, 
much less elaborate than the epitome of which the existence was postulated 
by Mommsen, and which Zangemeister {ibid.) even regards as the basis of the 
extant epitome of Livy. 

We append a brief summary of the chief historical results to be gained from 
the new find. In foreign affairs the papyrus gives no new information about 
the Third Punic and Achaean Wars and confirms the generally received view. 
The chronology of the Macedonian war against Pseudophilippus, which was 
previously somewhat uncertain, is now fixed more precisely ; cf. 11. loi, 106, and 
126-7, note. The names of the ambassadors to Bithynia in B. c. 149, which are 
given in 11. 112-3, enable us to emend a corruption in the name of one of them 
as found in Polybius ; and a hitherto unknown defeat of the Romans in B. c. 141 
in Illyria is recorded in 1. 175. But much more valuable are the references to 
the Spanish war, especially the campaigns against Viriathus. Not only does the 
papyrus supply new facts of importance, a victory (apparently) in B. c. 147 
(1. 136), the defeat of L. Metellus in B. c. 14a (1. 167), and the delay of Q. Caepio 
(11. 182-4) ; but it is now for the first time possible to construct the right 
chronology of the governors of Southern Spain in B. C. i45-39> and the chief 
events connected with them. Hitherto the few references to the Spanish war 
in Epit. were insufficient to correct the unsatisfactory account in Appian, whose 
text is in parts defective. A detailed examination of the changes introduced 
into the received chronology of this war and of the new light thrown upon 
Appian is given in the note on 1. 167. More interesting, however, than defeats 
and victories are the references in the papyrus to home affairs. With regard to 
events previously known the most striking novelty is the date of the famous 
accusation of L. Aurelius Cotta by Scipio Africanus, which is placed by the 
papyrus in B.C. 138 in place of B.C. 133-29, a change which brings about 
a conflict between Livy and Cicero. Lines 115-6 probably fix the hitherto 
uncertain date of the Lex Scantinia. Among details which are new are the 
important military reform introduced by Appius Claudius in B. c. 140 (11. 177-8), 
the dispute between the consul and the tribunes in the same year (11. 183-4), 
and the statement about the ancestry of A. Gabinius, author of the Lex Gabinia 
(1. 193). It is also a matter of interest that we can now connect with Livy 
several statements of later writers, e.g. Dio Cassius (11. 195-6, note), Valerius 



Maximus (notes on 11. 161-3, 164-6, and 192), Frontinus (11. 188-90, note), and 
Obsequens (11. 127-9, note). Though the sadly imperfect condition of the text 
prevents this list from being much longer, and the numerous fragmentary- 
references to hitherto unknown events serve only to accentuate the sense of loss, 
the papyrus is nevertheless a very serviceable addition to the authorities for the 
period from B. C. 150-139, and is a welcome violation of the monopoly hitherto 
enjoyed by Greek philology in the recovery of classical literature from Egypt. 

For many suggestions and references in the commentary on this papyrus 
we are indebted to Mr. W. Warde Fowler. The first proofs of our publication 
were submitted to Profs. Kornemann, Reid, and Wissowa, who have also 
contributed much to the elucidation of several problems. 

Col. i. 

[in Hispa\nia Romani caesi. Book 37 (B.C. 190). 

\M. Fulvio] Cn. Manlio cos. B.C. 189. 

[ ]j pax itertim data est. P. Lepidinus {maximus^ 

\pontif\ex maximus Q. Fabium pr{aetorem) quod flamen 
5 [Qiiirin\alem erat proficisci in Sardiniam 

[ \qnt. Ant[i]ocho regi pax data. Lusitani 

[vastati.] Rhodonia desoli deduct a. 

[Glabrio c^enstiram petens minantes 

[accusd\tionem compellitoribus composito 
10 \desiiti\t. 

lib{er) xxxviii Book 38. 

\Ambra\cia capta. 

\Gallog\raecis in Pamphylia proelio vastatis 

[ \a liberata. Origiacontis captian nobilis 

15 [centuri]onem cuius vim pass{a) erat aurum admit 

\t ] posceniem occidit caputque eius ad virum 

[secum ? itdit.] Campanis coniurium. datum. [ ] 

[inter Achae]os et Lacedaemonios cruenta [pr\oelia. 
[M. Valeria L\ulio Calinatore cos. B.C. 188. 

20 [ p]raeda ex Gallograecia per Cra .[.... 

[ducta. L. M\inucius Myrtilus et L. Man[i}liu[s 


[per legat]os Chartaginien\t\ium qui 
[pulsi eran\t (^avectify. 
[M. Aemilio C. F[\aminio cos. B.C. 187. 


25 [P. Scipio] Africanus a Qumtis Metellis die{s}[ 
[dicta in Li\tratum abi{t)t^ qui ne revocaretur 
[Gracchus ffib{tinus) pl{ebis) intergessit. L. Cornelius 

3. 1. Licinius for Lepidinus, 5. 1. \quirin\alis. 7. 1. Bononia for Rhodonia ; cf. 

p. 102. 8. \. minantibus. 9. \. competitoribus proposito. 14. 1. Oriiagoniis capiiva. 

17. 1. connubium for coniurium. 19. 1. Lyvio Salinatore. 20. 1. per Thrd\cia7n. 25. 
1. Petilliis for Metellis. 26. 1. Li\terninum. 27. 1. inter cessit. 

Col. ii. 

Scipio dain[nattis ....]. ^«?. 

[lib{er) xxxv\iiii Book 39. 

30 /^A' (7. Flaini[nium et M. Aem.iliu\in cos. Ligures 

perdomiti. y[iae Flaminia e]t Aetniliana mufiita[e. 

Latinorum [ ]inum coacta 

ab Roma re[dire. Manlius . .]m de Gallo- 

graecis in f\riumpho \an[. petunia 

35 quae trans\lata erat ^is p\eY\5'\oluta. 

Sp. Postum{i)o [Q. Marcio co\s. B.C. 186. 

Hispala Fd\cenia meretri\ce et pupillo 

Aebutio qii\ein T. Sempronius] Rutilius 

tutor et viewer Duronia ciycumscribserant 
40 indicium re[ferentibus Ba]ccha- 

{n)alia subla[ta His]pan[{\ 

subacti. at\Jiletarum cer]tamina 

primum a Fu[lvio Nobilior]e edita. 

Galli(^sy in Ital\iam transgressis MaVcelhim 
45 [p]ersuasit [ut trans Alpes redirect. L. Cornelius 

Scipio pos[t be Hum Antioch{\ ludos voti- 

vos con[lata pecunia feci\t. 
App\pp Clau[dio M. Semproni\o cos. B, c. 185. 

Ligures fu[gati \llis accepta 

50 P. Claudio Ptdchr\o L. Porcio Li]cinio cos. B.C. 184, 

homifii ccd 00 [a Naevio priaetore) ven]efici{i) damnati. 

L. Quintius Fla[niininus . . . .] Gallia 

quod Philippg [Poeno scorto] suo deside- 

rante gladidytorium specta]culum 

37. 1 Fi\cenia. 39. 1. ci]rcumscrtpserani. 40. 1. indicium. 44. 1. Ma]rcellus. 

51.1. hominum circa d{uo) {millia) ? 


Col. iii. 

fs siia manu Bomi[m nobilem occiderat 
a lanatone cen[sore senatu motus est. 
vastaita Porcia [facta. 
M. Claudia Marcello [Q. Fabio Labeone cos. B.C. 183. 

P. Licini Crassi po[ntificis maximi 

60 ludis fune(b^ribus [ in foro 

tabernaculis po\sitis evenit id quod 

nate[s c\ecin\e^fat \tabernacida 

in foro futura. f[ 16 letters 

difd^ ...].. m. Hanjiibal 12 letters 

65 ^ \uh^\ 19 letters 

l[ib{er) xxxx - Book 40. 

L. A[emilio C]n. Berio \cos. B.C. 183. 

[ ] belliim /[ id letters 

[ ]ellitesitt[ 16 „ 

70 [ ] Theoxen[a 15 j, 

in mare w[ . \igien\ Demetrius 

ficiie grimonibus [accusatus 

per patrem coactti^s 14 letters 
P. Lentulo M. Paebio {cos. B.C. 181. 

75 in agro L. Nerylli sc[ribae libri Numae inventi. 

A. Postumio C. (^Calpurnio^ \cos. B.C. 180. 

cum Liguribus Hisj{ani subacti. 

L. Livius trib{unus) pl{ebis) quod [annos nati quemque 
magistratum peie[rent rogatio lata 
80 est. 

Q. Fidvio M. Manlio c\os. B.C. 179. 

M. Lepidi et Fulvii No[bilioris 

55. 1. Boiujn. 56. 1. M. Catone for lanatone. 57. 1. basilica for vastaiia. 

62. 1. vate[s\ for nate[s]. 67. 1. Baebio for Berio. 72. \. fictis criminibus. 74. 

1. Cornelio (or Cethego) for Lentulo and Baebio for Paebio. 75. 1. Peiillii for Nerylli. 78. 
1. a L. Villio for Z. Livius and quot for quod. 

Col. iv. 

adversus Cka[r]taginienses. Lusitani vd\stati. Book 48 (b. c. 150)• 
C. Corneliu[s . . . .]ecus quod P. Decim su\ 



85 a . ictam ingeni^am stupraverat d αί^ 


li[b{er)] χχχχιΙ\Ρίη Book 49• 

L. Marcio Censorino M. Man{i)lio cos. B• C. 149• 

helium Pwticum tertium exortum. Utic[enses 
90 \b\enigne locant auxiliate. Char tag in[i]e[nses 
[Vj« [d\edicionem vemrunt, iussi gmnj^ [sua 

in alium locum trqnsferr^ mg[ 

redierunt. Roman[os '^s 

pepulerunt. Scipid^ 21 letters 


95 Aemiliani fpjdem p[ Aemi- 

liani virtute exer\citus qui obsessus 
a Poenis erat liber\atus. 16 letters 

h . 

per Caridemum poe[ Ser. Galba a Lusi- 

tanis reus product[ 20 letters 
100 fill quos flens com[plexus est. Andrisco . . . 

tii se Philippi philtu[m ferente Macedonia 

fer arma occupata. [ 20 letters 

Man{i)lio et Marc{i)o cos. quarti ludi saecula- 

re[s] factos quos opo[rtuit Diti ex Sibyllinis 
105 car minibus [Ter'^piji facti sunt. 

[ lib{er) I Book 50. 

per socios popuji Romani Pseudophilippus 

in ultimam d\^ 24 letters 

/Λί[. ..]/[.. Μ 17 „ Prusiasl 

90. \. auxiliati ; cf. p. 104. loi. \.fih'u[m. 

Col. V. 

no [rex BithyYiae positus est. ad Attalum regem 

[ ] in pugnamentasi sunt legati Marco 

[. . .podd\gricus A. Hostilius Mancinus capite 

[ \a quondam L. Manilius Volso stolidus 

[ ] ligationem dixerunt M. Cato respondit 

115 [nee caput] nee pedes nee cor habere {nt}. M. Sca[n]ti{ni)us 

[ ]am tulit {de) in stupro deprehensi{s). 

[Sp. Albino L. Piso\ne cos. B• C 148. 


[Masinis{sa) uli\imae senectutis liberos ϊϊϊϊ 

[ \s reliquit decedens, cuius re- 

120 [gnum natu max]imis filis per miliaannum distributum. 

[Marcellus leg\atus ad Masinissam missus 

[obrutus. Ha]sdrubal quod adfinis Masiniss{ae) erat 

[ \ta subselli socius est. Scipio Aemilianus 

[consul creai\us. 
125 \M\ Manilius] in Africa{m] pr\o\spere dimicatus \es\t. 

[luventii pr{aetoris) {\n Thessalia exercitus caesus. 

[Pkilippus a] Metello captus. sacrarium 

\. . . . et laur]us soci maximo incendio 

[inviolaia. ] 
130 [ lib{er) It] Book 51. 

[P. Cornelia C. Livio] cos. B. c. 147. 

[ Cartha\ginein Appius crudelissime 

[ \ne obsideniiis Romanes non 

[ Cartkag]ineni crebris proeli^is"^. 

135 {per Achaeor]um pr{aetorem) Corinthi legati Romano 

[pidsati. Lu]sitani subalti. 

III. \.in PergamenosiJ) missi for pugnameniasi (cf. p. 105) and M{arcus) .... for 
Marco. 114. 1. legationem. 120. 1. Aemilianum for miliaannuvi. 123. 1. occisus 

for socius. 125. 1. dimicavit for dimicatus \es^. 133. 1. obsidentes. 135. 1. Romani. 

136. 1. subacti\ cf. p. 107. 

Col. vi. 

Cn. Corne[lio L. Mummio cos. B.C. 146. 

\p\er Scipion[em Carthago 

[d]irepta. qti[ 
140 visset uxo[rem 

duobus fil[is 

pofestate [ 

Aemilia qu[ 

[ lib(er) Hi Book 53. 

145 L. Mtimanus C[orinthum dim it. 

Mxore i?[ 

peruriam[ a Lusitanis c lades 

accepta. [ 

Η a 


Q. Fabio Maximo L. Hostilio cos. B.C. i45• 

150 M. Petronj 

adversu[s Viriathum 
Ser. Galba L. [Coif a cos. B.C. 144. 

L. Metell{us con- 

sulatum [ 
155 qui invis[us plebi 

fetitur z{ 

Syria va[stata 


[ lib[er) liii Book ^'i,. 

160 Q. Metello [Appio Claudio cos. B. C. 143. 


liber OS t .[ 

proposito λ[ 

145• 1. Mummius. 
One column lost. 

Col. vii. 

occidit, a Tyresio quern devicij gladiu\m 
165 dono accepit sagidoque remi[sso am]ici- 

[ίί^μβ dextram dedit. 

[MYtellus COS. a Lusitanis vex\atus. ] 

\s\igna statu(^a)s tabulas CorintUias L. Μ \ummiiis 

distribuit circa oppida et Rom[ ]vit. 

170 [C}t. Caepione Q. Pompeio cos. B.C. 141. 

Q. Fabius Maximus Lusitanis ca[esis ] 

Viriathum fugavit. 

lib{er) liiii Book 54. 

Pompeius cos. a{n] Nu{a}maniinis d^evictii^^. in 
175 Scordiscis cladis accepta. 

[Q. Cae\pione \C\ Laelio Salqsso o^os. B.C. 140. 

Appius Claudius evicit iie duos [delectus}] annus 

haberet. Uemilius Torquatus D. S[ild\num 

filium suu[m] de Macedonia dqmn[avit, f\uneri 
180 non inter fuit, eademque die [in do[mo\ sua 

coftstdtafitibus respondit. 


\C\aepio cos. indelegem Ti. Claudiam Assilium 
tr(J,)b[unu'm) pl{ebis) inter pellantem, profectionem 
[s]uam l\i\ctores trigem reddeterhuit. 

185 \Q\ Fabius Maximus a Viriatk{i]o devictus de- 
\f\)rmem, cum, hostibus pacem fecit. Q. Occius 

[ 2]« insidiis Lu^s^itanorum fortissime 

[pugnavit. . .]inae devota est aqua An{n\io. aqua 
[Marcia in Capi\tolium contra Sibyllae carmina 

190 [per due ta. ] 

176. 1. Sapiente for Salasso. 178. 1. 7. Manlius for Uemilius. 182. 1. Claudium 
Asellum. 184. 1. . . . ens deierruii; cf. p. 112. 

Col. viii. 

Cn. Pisone C. Polh\o cos. B.C. 139. 

Chaldaei urbe til[ ao letters 

A. Cabinius verna[e rogationem tulit 

suffragium per ta[bellam ferri. 

195 Servilius Caepio d\b equiiibus quos periculo 

obiecerat clavo [ictus 15 letters 

Audax Minurus {D)ita[lco 17 „ 

Viriathum iugula[verunt. 

lib{er) [Iv Book ^^. 

200 P. Sc[i]pione D. lunio [cos. B.C. 138. 

interfectores Viri\athi praemium 

negatum. c[um Scipi]on[em Nasicam et 

decemviru[m co]s. Licini[us et Curiatius 

trib{uni) pl{ebis) in car({er]em [c\plI[ocarent, 

205 precibus populi mul\fa r^missa 

trib[unus) pl{ebis) pro commodis pop[uli 

omnib[us) lucti expiravit. co[ . ]«^?2[ de- 

sertores in comitio virgis cae[si sestertiis 

singulis venierunt. 
210 P. Africanus cum L. Cottam [accu]sar[et 

magnitudinem nonijnis . .] . ca^ 

Lusitani vastati. a{n] N[uman]tijt[is clades accepta. 

Diodotus Tryphon An[tioc]hum [regem occi- 

dit Suriague potitus e[st. ] 


ai5 M. Aemilio C. Hostilio M[a]ncino [cos. 

Decimiis Brutus in Hispania re b\ene gesta 
Oblivionis flumen planus trand\ivit. 

B.C. 137. 

191. 1. M. Popilb\o for C. Polh[o. 192. 1. urbe et Iiaf[ia\ cf. p. 113. 193. 

1. Gabinius. 201. 1. inier/ecioribus. 203. 1. Decimum Brutum for decemviri^. 

207. 1. {ab) omntb{us) luctus. 214. 1. Syriaque. 217. 1. Oblivionem ζ,ηά primus for 


Fr. (4 

Fr. {b). 

Fr. {c). Fr. {d). 

] Sullanis [ 





]«^«w [ 

] [ 

] [ 


] [ 

] . samin[ 
\avit /{ 


] [ 

]v f[ 

] [ 



] [ 

1. Cf. Livy 37. 46. 

2. Cf. 37. 47. 

3. \s is probably AetolCs, for it is difficult to see what chapter can be referred to if not 51 ; 
but pax iterum data est somewhat perverts the truth, since the embassy of the Aetolians 
was summarily ordered to depart under threats of punishment and no terms were offered 
by the Senate. A negative would seem to have been omitted. 

P. Lepidinus'. his correct name was P. Licinius (37. 51). maximus is a repetition of 
part of his title. 

6. [ \ant\ this word must be corrupt; tenuit or retinuit (cf. 37. 51) would be 


An{J\ocho regi pax data : cf. 37. 55. 

Lusitani [vastatt] : cf 37. 57 and for vasiaiiW. 13, 83, and 212. 

7. Two events seem to be confused here, the Rhodian embassy about Soli (ch. 56 
ad fin.) and the foundation of Bononia (ch. 57), the latter being what is really meant, 
as shown by the intervening mention of the Lusitanians. de Soli{s), if more than a mere 
interpolation from ch. 56, probably represents colonia or de Gallis. 

8-10. Cf. 37. 57 ; destitit is the word used by Livy. 

12. Cf. 38. 1-9. 

13. Cf 38. 12 sqq. in Pamphylia, as Prof. Kornemann remarks, is not strictly 
accurate, the Gallograeci being defeated in Galatia. 

14. Probably [Phrygi'a or [Asia tot]a. 


14-17. For the story of Ortiagon's wife see 38. 24. captian must be capiiva, but 
uxor is much wanted and nobilis is probably corrupt. Possibly an nobilis is due to 
a reminiscence of the words Ancyram nobilem which occur at the beginning of the chapter. 

admii . . . also seems to be a corruption of a word meaning * promised,' while 
poscentem is ίοτ pensaniem, the word used by Livy. 

17. On the right of intermarriage granted to the Campanians see Livy 38. 36, where 
the event is placed in b.c. 188, and is the consequence of the census ordered to be taken 
in B.C. 189 which is mentioned in ch. 28. The papyrus records the event mentioned in 
ch. 36, but puts it in the place corresponding to ch. 28. Cf. note on 11. 44-5. 

18. Cf. 38. 30. 

19. Cf. 38. 35. 

20. Cf. 38, 40-1. 

21-3• Cf• 38- 42. 

24. Cf. 38. 42. 

25-7. Cf. 38. 50-3. Though die dicta or dicto is necessary for the construction, it is 
very likely that the scribe wrote dies dicia or dictus. 

27-8. Cf. 38. 55, 58-60. 

30-1. Cf. 39. 2. 

32-3. Cf. 39. 3. 

33-5• Cf. 39. 6-7. 

36. Cf. 39. 6. 

37-41. Cf. 39. 9-19. 

41-2. His\patiJ] subacti: cf. 39. 21, referring to the victory of C. Atinius. 

42-3. Cf. 39. 22. 

44-5. Cf 39. 22, where the incursion of the Gauls is described. But the apparent 
mention of Marcellus refers to ch. 54, where it is stated that in b.c. 183 they retired to 
their own country, Marcellus being then consul (cf. also ch. 45). The epitomizer seems 
therefore to have made the same kind of mistake as in connexion with the concession to 
the Campanians; cf. 1. 17, note. 

45-7. Cf. 39. 22 L. Scipio ludos . . . guos bello Aniiochi vovtsse sese dicehat ex collata 
ad id pecunia . . .fecit. 

48. Cf. 39. 23. 

49. The defeat of the Ligurians by the two consuls occurs in 39. 32, and the next 
event related is the elections. What \llis accepta refers to is not clear. Possibly multa 
mfllia capta was meant (cf. 39. 32 multa millia hominum in iis cepit); or ]//?> may represent 
part of cladis, and in or a Hispanis may be supplied (cf. 11. 174-5 and 212), the reference 
being to the defeat mentioned in ch. 30. This however was soon remedied, and a 
mention of this campaign would have been expected to precede instead of following 
the allusion to the Ligurian war. 

50. Cf. 39. 33. 

51. Cf. 39. 41. 

52-6. Cf. 39. 42. If . . . .] Gallia is not corrupt it is out of place, and ought to follow 

57. Cf. 39. 44. 

58. Cf. 39. 45. 
59-63. Cf. 39. 46. 

63-4. A reference to the capture and death of Philopoemen at the hands of the 
Messenians probably occurred here ; cf. 39. 49-50. 

64. Han\nibal'. a reference to his death ; cf. 39. 51. 


67• Cf. 39. 56. 

68. Perhaps \Hispant] should be restored before helium; cf. 40. i. 

70-1. Cf. 40. 4. Prof. Reid suggests in mare[m] [f^ugienis se dedit (or iecii). 
Livy's phrase is in mare sese deiecil. 

72. Cf. 40. 6-16. It is not clear whether /^r patrem coactu\ in 1. 73 also refers to the 
accusation against Demetrius or to his death by poisoning, which is described in 40. 24. 
coaciu[s does not seem to be right on either hypothesis. 

74. Cf. 40. 18. 

75. Cf. 40. 29. The restoration is however rather long for the lacuna. 

76. Cf. 40. 35. 

77. Cf. 40. 39-41. 

78-80. Cf. 40. 44 ^(? anno rogatio primicm lata est ah L. Villio tribuno plebis quot 
annos nati qnemque magistratum peierent caper entque. 

81. Cf. 40. 45. 

82. Cf. 40. 45-6. composita inimiciiia may be supplied. After this several columns 
are lost, corresponding to the break between 657. iv and v. 

83. adversus Chd\r\taginienses \ i.e. the war with Masinissa; cf. Epit. 48 ad fin. 
Carthaginienses cum adversus /oedus bellum Masinissae intulissent . . . 

Lusitani va\stati; cf. 1. 212. The reference is to the treacherous attack of Sulpicius 
Galba (cf. 1. 98), on which see Appian, Iber. 59-60, Orosius, iv. 21. 10, Val. Max. ix. 62, 
and Sueton. Galba 3. Epit. 48 has Ser. Sulpicius Galba praetor male adversus Lusitanos 
pugnavit, which has generally been interpreted as implying a defeat of the Romans. But, 
as Kornemann remarks, it is now clear that male means not ' unsuccessfully ' but 
' dishonourably.' 

84. Probably Ceth^cus, i.e. Cethegus] cf. 1. 14 Origiacontis for Ortiagontis. The 
incident is not recorded elsewhere, nor is any C. Cornelius Cethegus known at this period. 
L. Cornelius Cethegus was one of the accusers of Galba (Epit. 49) and M. Cornelius 
Cethegus was consul in b. c. 160. 

Decim seems to be corrupt for Decimi or Decii, and ί«[ is very likely the beginning of 
a cognomen. What a . ictam (or auctam) in 1. 85 means is obscure ; Reid suggests 
ancillam. Kornemann prefers Deci{u)m . . . ingenu[uyfi, comparing Val. Max. vi. i. 10 
quod cum ingenuo adulescentulo stupri commercium haJ>uissei. The doubtful u after d c 
can be i. 

87-93. 'Book 49. Consulship of L. Marcius Censorinus and M'. Manilius. The 
Third Punic War began. The inhabitants of Utica willingly assisted (the Romans). The 
Carthaginians surrendered; being ordered to transfer all their possessions to another site 
they returned . . .' 

90. auxiliate is for auxiliaii (so. sunt\ and locant perhaps conceals the object 
(? Romanis). locant auxilium, though in itself a possible phrase, is unlikely, for the verbs 
in the papyrus are uniformly in the perfect tense and generclly come at the end of the 

91-3. Cf. Epit. 49 tunc cum ex auctoritate patrum inherent (sc. consults) ut in alium 
locum dum a mar i dec em milia passuum ne minus remotum oppidum facer ent, indignitate rei ad 
rebellandum Carthaginienses compulerunt. Υ ox facer ent Gronovius had conjectured trans- 
ferreni, which seems to have been the verb employed in 1. 92. The embassy of the 
Carthaginians mentioned in 11. 90-1 came to Rome (cf, Epit. legati triginta Romam 
venerunt per quos se Carthaginienses dederuni); but the demand to evacuate Carthage was 
made by the consuls after reaching Africa, and if redierunt refers to the return of the 
ambassadors to Carthage, the statement of the papyrus is inaccurate. It is more likely that 


redierunt refers to the renewal of the war, m after trdjisferfe may well be a mistake for 
in. The whole phrase would then be an antithesis to in dedicionem venerunt in 1. 91, 

93-5. The subject οι pepiderunt must be the Carthaginians, since the siege began 
with the repulse of the Romans. Lines 94-5 refer to the distinction gained by Scipio 
Aemilianus in the early engagements ; cf. Epit. 49 and Appian, Pun. 98-9. 

95-7• This refers to the occasion on which Scipio saved the Roman army at Nepheris; 
cf. Epit. and Appian, Pun. 102-3. 

97-8. Who this Charidemus was is unknown. poS^ is possibly poejam. 

98-100. Cf. Epit., Λvhere the prosecution of Galba is described more fully. In 1. 99 
uUiQT producf^us agreeing with Galba, οτ producfj agreeing with//?' may be read. 

1 01. Unless Philippi is an error for Persei, Reid is probably right in correcting Ίϋ 
se Philippi to Persei se Philippum ; cf Epit. Persei se filium ferens et muiato nomine Philippus 
vocatus .... ioiam Macedoniam aut voluntate incolentium aut armis occupavit. 

103-5. The Epitome of Book 49 ends with the description of the revolt of Macedonia, 
but carminibus in 1. 105 strongly suggests that this passage refers to the celebration of 
the games of Dis at Terentum in accordance with the Sibylline books, a fact which is 
mentioned near the beginning of Epit. 49 Dili pairi ludi ad Terentum ex praecepto 
librorum Sibyllinorum facti, qui ante annum ceniesimum primo Punico bello quingentesimo ei 
altera anno ab urbe condita facti erant. This is confirmed by a passage in Censorinus, 
De die natali 17, 8, to which our attention was called by Komemann and Wissowa, de 
quartorum ludorum anno triplex sententia est. Antias enim et Varro et Livius relates 
esse prodiderunt L. Marcio Censorino, M. Manilio consulibus post Romam conditam anno 
sexcentesimo quinto. at Piso Censorius et Cn. Gellius sed et Cassius Hemina qui illo tempore 
vivebat post annum /ados tertium affirmant Cn. Cornelio Lentulo, L. Mummio Achaico 
consulibus.^ id est anno sexcentesimo octavo, in quindecim virorum autem commentariis 
notantur sub anno sexcentesimo vicesimo octavo Mam. Aemilio Lepido., L. Aurelio Oreste 
consulibus. The restorations of 11. 103-4 are due to Wissowa, who {Religion und Kultus 
der Romer, p. 364) considers that Livy's date for the games (b.c. 149) is wrong, and that 
Cassius Hemina was right in assigning them to B.C. 146. 

107-8. Cf Epit. 50 Thessalia cum et illam invadere armis atque occupare Pseudo- 
philippus vellet per legatos Romano rum auxiliis Achaeorum defensa est. 

109. Possibly the death of Cato was referred to here, this being the only place in the 
papyrus where a mention of it can be inserted. That event is referred to this year by 
Cicero {Brut, 15), and cf 1. 56 where Catone is corrupted into lanatone. 

no. The death of Prusias is noticed in Epit. If Prusias in 1. 109 is ύ^\., positus is 
probably corrupt for some word meaning 'killed' (^ occisus, cf 1. 123); but ide)positus is 
just possible, for Prusias seems to have been first abandoned by his subjects (Justin 
34. 4). depono in the sense of ' depose ' is however not classical. Komemann would 
x€i^Ysx positus and supply Nicomedes in 1. 109. 

1 10-5. The embassy which gave rise to the jest of Cato is also mentioned in the 
Epitome immediately after the death of Prusias, though the incident took place in 
Prusias' lifetime. 

Line iii is very corrupt, si before sunt must be the termination of a participle 
such as missi; but what is pugnamenta? Pergamenos is not very satisfactory since the 
mention of Pergamus seems unnecessary after ad Attalum regem. The names of the 
ambassadors are given only by Polybius (37. i^) as Marcus Licinius (gouty), Aulus 
Mancinus (broken head), and Lucius Malleolon (the fool). The last name can now be 
corrected to Manlius, which is meant by Manilius in the papyrus as is sho\vn by the 
cognomen Volso (Vulso). The Manlii Vulsones were a distinguished patrician family in 


the earlier part of the republic, and members of it were consuls as late as b. c. 189 and 178. 
Marco in 1. in is probably M{arcus) followed by the first part of another name which was 
more probably a cognomen (} Archias) than Licinius. 

The first half of 1. 113 seems to be corrupt, '^a may be the termination of test\a (cf. 
Polybius, /. c. κίραμ'ώοί etf την κεφαλήν ΐ'μπΐσούσης) ; but a participle is also required, and even 
if there were space for it before ies/]a the order of capi'/e .... quondam would be awkward. 

1 1 5-6. This event is omitted in the Epitome. Should deprehensi be corrected to 
deprehensus, and some word like repuls'am be supplied ? A certain tribune C. Scantinius 
Capitolinus was accused of stuprum by M. Claudius Marcellus, as aedile, in b. c. 222 
(Val. INIax. vi. i. 7; cf. Plutarch, Vit. Marc. 2), but the Marcus Scantinius here must 
be different. As Warde Fowler remarks, it seems very unlikely that there Avere two 
Scantinii condemned for stuprum, one in b. c. 208, the other in b.c. 149, and that there 
should also be a Lex Scanhnia on the same offence, of which the date is unknown 
(Mommsen, Slra/rechi, p. 703). He therefore thinks that the present passage refers to 
the passing of the Lex Scariiinia, and that ]am is corrupt for the termination of plebisciium, 
while 171 stupro deprehensi is for de vi stupro deprehensis. 

1 18-2 1. ' Masinissa dying in extreme old age left four children, and his kingdom was 
divided by Aemilianus among the elder sons.' Cf. Epit. Masinissa Numidiae rex maior 
no7iaginia annis decessii . . . adeo etiam in settee iam viguil ut post sexium et ociogesimum annum 
filium genuerit. inter tres liberos eius, maximum naiu Micipsam, Gulussam, Mastanabalem . . . 
P. Scipio Aemilianus . . . partes administra?idi regni divisit. The fourth legitimate son who 
received no share of the kingdom was no doubt the one bom when his father was 86 ; 
but other writers differ from Livy regarding the number of Masinissa's children. The 
death of Masinissa is placed by Mommsen at the end of b.c. 149, but according to the 
papyrus it took place early in b.c. 148. 

1 2 1-2. Cf. Epit. ex tribus legatis qui ad Masinissam missifuerant, Claudius Marcellus 
coorta tempestate obruius est. 

122-3. Cf. Epit. Carthagi7iienses Hasdrubalem Masinissae nepotem . . . proditionis 
suspectum in curia occideru7it. Appian (/*««. in) in describing the death of Hasdrubal 
uses the equivalent of subsellium οί 5e τνπτονπ! αντον τοίς νποβάθροι% κατέβαλαν. ν<7 is very 
YikiAy /rag7)ienium in some form. Kornemann aptly compares Orosius, iv. 22. 8 Asdrubal . . . 
subselhOru7}i /ragmentis . . . occisus est. 

123-4. Cf. Epit. P. Scipio Aemilianus cum aedilitaiem peteret . . . legibus solutus et consul 
creatus est. 

125. The Epitome is more explicit: M' . Manilius aliquot urbes circumpositas Car thagini 

126-7. Cf. Epit. Pseudophilippus in Macedonia caeso cum exercitu P. luventio praetor e 
a Q. Caecilio victus capiusque est et recepta Macedonia. Mommsen places the defeat of 
Juventius doubtfully in b.c 149, and the victory of Metellus in B.C. 148. It now appears 
that both events took place in b. c. 148. 

127-9. The burning of the sacrarium is not mentioned in Epit., but is explained, 
as Kornemann and Wissowa point out, by Obsequens 19 (78) vasto incendio Romae cum 
regia quoque ureretur, sacrarium et ex duabus altera laurus ex mediis ignibus inviolata 
exstiterunt, upon which passage the restorations of 11. 128-9 are based, soci \5 corrupt, 
possibly for Opis. 

130. The blank space between 11. 128 and 131 is barely sufiicient for two intervening 
lines, and there is the further difiiculty that the letters of the books are elsewhere placed 
near the middle of the line, so that the termination of the title ought to have been visible 
here. But since verbs are generally placed at the end of the sentence in the papyrus 


inviolata or an equivalent is required for 1. 129, and to suppose the omission of the title 
'liber W and to assign 11. 131-143 to the 50th Book would introduce a serious conflict 
between the papyrus and the extant Epitome with regard to the arrangement of Books 50-53. 
If the title therefore of Book 51 was omitted, this was probably a mere accident. 

132-4. This passage is very corrupt. No Appius is known in connexion with the 
operations at Carthage at this period, crudelissime suggests that Appius is a mistake for 
Hasdrubal, and that 11. 132-3 refer to the cruelty of Hasdrubal towards the Roman 
prisoners described by Appian (P««. 118). 

135-6. Cf. Epit. quod legati populi Romani ab Achaeis pulsati sint Lorintm. ine 
Achaean praetor referred to was Critolaus. , τ • • 

136 The simplest correction for subalti is subadi, but no victory over the Lusitanians 
at this period is known. Appian {Iber. 60-1) passes straight from the treachery of Galba 
(cf. 11 83 and 98) to the defeats of Vetilius and Plautius (cf. 11. 146-8, note). The Epitome 
does not mention Spanish affairs in this book, but gives an account of Viriathus earlier 
successes in Book 52. If however there was really a victory over the Lusitanians in 
Β c 147 the explanation may be as follows. The reverse sustained by Vetilius recorded 
by Appian ilber. 61) is represented as the direct and immediate result of a preliminary 
success obtained by the Romans, but it is not unlikely that Appian has combined the 
events of two separate campaigns by Vetilius into one and that Lusiiani subacti here refers 
to his success, while his reverse took place in the next year, b.c. 146; cf. 11. 146-8, note.^ 
The papyrus mentions only one defeat by the Lusitanians. 

138 The destruction of Carthage is mentioned in the Epitome before the attack upon 
the embassy at Corinth, but owing to the strictly chronological system adopted by the 
author of the papyrus it is here correctly placed in b.c. 146. 

139-43. These lines, as Kornemann and Reid suggest, probably refer to the story of 
the death of Hasdrubal's wife, who first threw her two children into the flames ; cf. Epit. 51. 
i±e^. Ci.Y.O\\.. Corinihon ex senaius consullo diruii. 

146. uxore: probably, as Kornemann remarks, this entry refers to the death of Uiaeus 
by poison after killing his wife ; cf. Pausan. vii. 16. 2-4, Zonaras ix. 86, Auctor de vir.iU.^o. 
147-8. a Lusitanis clades] accepta (cf 1. 175) may refer to the defeats of Vetihus 
and C. Plautius mentioned in Epit., or to one of them ; cf. note on 1. 136. 

1Γ0 A certain C. Petronius who was an ambassador to Attains and Prusias in 
B. c. 156 is mentioned in Polyb. 32. 26, but no M. Petronius is known at this period. 

151. adversds'. this probably refers to the dispatch of the consul Q. Fabius Maximus 
Aemilianus against Viriathus; cf. Epit. 52 taniumque terror is is hostis intulit ul adversus 
cum consulari opus essei et duce et exerciiu, and note on 1. 167. If the reverse mentioned 
in 1. 148 (cf. 11. 147-8, note) refers to Vetilius, possibly the defeat of Plautius occurred m 
B. c. 145, instead of 146, as has been generally supposed. 

153 L. Metellus is perhaps the brother of Quintus and the consul in b.c. 142; 
cf. 1. 167, note. But the mention of consulaium suggests a reference to the two failures 
of Q. Metellus' candidature for the consulship before he obtained it for b.c. 143, and 
Kornemann is probably right in regarding Z. as a mistake for Q. On the confusion ot 
the two brothers cf. notes on 11. 164-6 and 167. For invis^us plebi cf. Auct. de viris 
illust. 61 invisus plebi ob nimiam severitatem et ideo post duas repulsas consul aegref actus. 

■ 1 6 1-3. Reid is no doubt right in connecting this passage with the story told by 
Valerius Maximus (v. i. 5) of Rhoetogenes' children, to save whom Q. Metellus abandoned 
the siege of a town in Spain. , , r *u » 

164-6. This passage, elucidated by Reid and Wissowa, clearly refers to the two 
exploits of Q. Occius (cf. 1. 186) in Spain recorded by Val. Max. (iii. 2. 21), whose account 


of the second is idem Pyressuvi (v. 1. Pyreswn) nohiliiaie ac viriute Celtiberos omnes 
praestantem . . . succumbere sibi coegit ; nee erubuit flagrantissimi pectoris iuvenis gladium 
ei suum el sagulum . . . tradere. ille veto etiani petiit ut hospiiii iure inter se iuncti essent . . . 
This corresponds to a Tyresio, &c. ; occidit in 1. 164 belongs to the story of the first 
exploit (the killing of a Celtiberian warrior) described in the lost column. In Val. Max. 
sagulum is coupled with gladium^ but the order of words in 11. 164-5 indicates that 
saguloque remi[sso is an ablative absolute and saguloque is not to be altered to sagulumque. 
With regard to the name of the Celtiberian, the form Tyresius found in 1. 164 is supported 
by Orosius v. 8. i (a reference which we owe to Dr. Greenidge), where a Celticus princeps 
called Thyresus is mentioned in connexion with the pacification of Spain after the fall 
of Numantia. Clearly the same name, and very likely the same person are meant, so that 
the MSS. of Val. Max. are probably wrong in giving the forms Pyressus or Pyresus. 
There is also a slight divergence between the papyrus and Val. Max. concerning the 
date of Q. Occius' achievements, which the former assigns to b.c. 142 while Val. Max. 
represents Q. Occius as Q. Metello consult legatus, thus indicating the year b.c. 143. Since 
Q. Occius in any case remained in Spain until b.c. 140 (1. 186) and Q. Metellus was there 
in both B.C. 143 and 142 (1. 167, note) the inconsistency is trifling, but Q. Metello consult 
may easily be a mistake for Z. Metello consult or Q. Metello proconsuli; cf. notes on 
11. 153-6 and 167. 

167. This fact that L. Metellus, consul in b. c. 142, Avent to Spain and was there 
defeated by the Lusitanians is neAv, and is the first of a series of references to the war 
against Viriathus which throw much light on its history. Owing to the extreme brevity 
of the extant Epitome of Books 53 and 54 the principal authority has hitherto been Appian, 
whose account of the Spanish war is preserved in a single very corrupt codex. The 
generally received chronology from b. c. 143-37, e. g. that of Mommsen, is as follows : — 

B. c. 143. Q. Caecilius Metellus, governor of Northern Spain, is successful, but the 
praetor Quinctius, governor of Southern Spain, is defeated by Viriathus. 

B.C. 142. Q. Metellus as proconsul continues to be successful. Q. Fabius Maximus 
Servilianus, consul, who succeeded Quinctius in Southern Spain according to Appian 
[Iber. 67), invades Lusitania, but is compelled to retreat. 

B.C. 141. Q. Fabius Maximus as proconsul is at first victorious, but is afterwards 
defeated and compelled to conclude a disgraceful peace. Q. Pompeius, consul, the new 
governor of Northern Spain, is also defeated. 

B.C. 140. Q. Caepio, consul, the new governor of Southern Spain, invades Lusitania. 
(The death of Viriathus is placed in this year by e.g. Peter, Zeitta/eln, p. 69.) Q. Pompeius 
remains as proconsul in Northern Spain. 

B.C. 139. Viriathus is killed at the instigation of Q. Caepio, who remains in Southern 
Spain as proconsul. M. Popillius, consul, became governor of Northern Spain. 

B.C. 138. M. Popillius, proconsul, is defeated by the Numantines. D. Junius Brutus, 
consul, becomes governor of Southern Spain, and in this year and b.c. 137-6 subdues the 
country, and is the first Roman to cross the river Oblivio. 

From this chronology the papyrus has important variations after B.C. 143, of which 
year the account is unfortunately lost. 

B.C. 142. Victory of the Lusitanians over the consul L. Metellus, who must therefore 
have been governor of the Southern province. The success of his brother, Q. Metellus, 
in the Northern province, which is mentioned in Epit. 53, was no doubt referred to in 
the lost portion of the account of b.c. 142. 

B.C. 141. Victory of Q. Fabius Maximus over Viriathus (11. 171-2). Defeat of 
Q. Pompeius (1. 174). 


B.C. 140, Q. Caepio delayed in starting for his province (II. 182-4). Q. Fabius 
is defeated, and concludes a disgraceful peace with Viriathus (11. 185-6). Q. Occius 
distinguishes himself in an engagement with the Lusitanians, in which the Romans fell 
into an ambush (11. 186-8). 

B.C. 139. Death of Viriathus (11. 197-8). 

B.C. 138. Refusal of a reward to the murderers of Viriathus (11. 201-2). Victory over 
the Lusitanians, and defeat by the Numantines (1. 212). 

B.C. 137. D. Brutus crosses the river Oblivio (11. 216-7). 

Comparing the two arrangements, we may note that no conflict arises in connexion 
with events in Northern Spain, nor in b. c. 138-7 with those in Southern Spain. The 
death of Viriathus is assigned by the papyrus to b. c. 139, not 140, thus confirming 
the opinion of Mommsen; and if our conjecture in 1. 147 is correct, the papyrus perhaps 
supports the date assigned to the defeat of Plautius. But in the years b. c. 142-0 there 
are marked differences between the new evidence and the received chronology. Beginning 
at the end, only one campaign (b.c. 139) is obtainable for the governorship of Q. Caepio 
instead of two (b.c. 140-39). The governorship of Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus is 
assigned to the years b.c. ι 41-0 instead of b.c 142-1 ; and while the papyrus agrees with the 
ordinary chronology in placing his victory in b.c. 141, his defeat and the peace are assigned 
not to B.C. 141 but to B.C. 140. Lastly in b.c. 142 the papyrus tells us of a hitherto 
unknown governor of Southern Spain, the consul L. Metellus. 

It will hardly be disputed that Livy's chronology of the war against Viriathus, now 
that more detailed information on it is obtained, carries much more weight than that of 
Appian or the other still inferior authorities. It remains to investigate how far in the 
light of the new evidence there is a real inconsistency between Livy and the other 
authorities, and to explain, if possible, the origin of the divergences. As to the governorship 
of Caepio there is no great difficulty. The events related by Appian {Iber. 70-1) need 
occupy no more than one year. The fact that Valerius Maximus (ix. 6. 4) and Eutropius 
(iv. 16) speak of Caepio as consul when Viriathus was assassinated, and therefore assign his 
principal campaign in Spain to b.c 140 instead of b.c 139, is of trifling importance in the 
face of the explanation afforded by the papyrus (11. 182-4) of his delay in starting. More- 
over, although the campaign in the summer of b.c 140 was conducted by Fabius Maximus 
Servilianus, Caepio may well have arrived in Spain before the end of the year. The 
reason why two years have hitherto been assigned to his governorship was that he had 
to occupy the interval between Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus and D. Brutus, and that the 
former of these had been assigned to b.c ι 42-1. 

Nor does the transference of Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus' governorship to b.c 141-0 
produce any serious conflict with other statements. That Livy assigned these two years 
to him rather than b.c ι 4 2-1 might have been guessed from the extant Epitome, for 
he was consul in b.c 142, yet Epit. 53 mentions his successes as proconsul, and Epit. 54 
(ad fin) his defeat. But these indications that Fabius was already proconsul when he 
became governor of Southern Spain — a fact which is made quite clear by the papyrus — 
were disregarded, partly owing to the statement of Orosius (v. 4) that Fabius in his consul- 
ship (i.e. in b.c. 142) fought against Viriathus, partly owing to an inference from Appian, 

Iber. 67, where the opening words τον δ* imovTos erovs Κοίντω μίν 6 ahiK^bs ΑίμιΚιανοΰ Φάβιοί 
Μάξιμο5 ^epoviKcavos [Αίμιλιανος MS.) r/KOfv ini την στρατηγίαν διάδοχος have in connexion with 

the preceding events been supposed to refer to b.c 142. To leave for the moment the 
question which year Appian meant by τον imovTos ίτονς, his account of Fabius Servilianus' 
achievements accords well enough with that of Livy. It is true that the successes of Fabius 
in Appian's account seem to belong to the later rather than to the earlier part of his 


governorship, but it is not difficult to suppose that Appian omitted to record some trifling 
successes such as the capture of Baccia mentioned by Orosius (/. c), probably one of 
the urbes which were expugnaiae according to Epit. 53; cf. 11. 17 1-2. Two campaigns 
are implied by Appian, as is more clearly stated by Livy; but Appian does not call 
Servilianus consul. Where the facts known from Livy conflict seriously with at any rate 
the present text of Appian is in the events which took place between the departure of 
Fabius Maximus Aemilianus and the arrival of Fabius Maximus Servihanus. The 
governorship of Aemilianus is expressly stated by Appian to have lasted two years {^Iber. 65). 
Aemilianus was consul in b.c. 145, and that the years of his governorship were b.c. 145-4 
is unquestionable; cf. Epit. 52 tantumque iimoris is hostis intulii ut adversus eum consular i 
opus esset et duce et exercitu. The disaster to Plautius which led to sending an experienced 
general is, as we have said, very likely alluded to in 1. 147 of the papyrus, and 1. 151 may 
well refer to the dispatch of Aemilianus. So far as is known, Aemilianus had both Spains 
under his command; but who succeeded him on his departure in b.c. 143? Northern 
Spain at any rate seems to have fallen to the consul for b.c. 143 Q. CaeciHus Metellus 
(cf. Val. Max. iii. 2. 21, ix. 3. 7; Appian, Iber. 76), and that he remained as proconsul 
in B.C. 142 is attested by Epit. 53; but the question who obtained Southern Spain is very 
complicated. From Val. Max. ix. 3. 7, where Q. Metellus utramque Hispaniam consul prius, 
deinde proconsul . . . subegisset is the reading of the MSS., it would be inferred that Metellus 
was governor of both Spains ; but uiramque has been altered by some editors to provinciam 
on the ground that Metellus was only governor of Northern Spain, the governorship of 
Southern Spain in b.c. 143 being generally assigned to Quinctius, who is supposed to have 
been a praetor and to have been the immediate predecessor of Fabius Servilianus on the 
evidence of Appian, Iber, 65-7. This passage, which is very corrupt, now requires a fresh 
examination in the light of the new evidence. After recounting the achievements of Fabius 
Aemilianus in b.c. 145 and b.c 144, Appian proceeds (ed. Mendelssohn) : και τάδβ μίν 6 

Αίμιλιανος (2fpovi\iav6s MS.) ίργασάμ(νοί es 'Ρώμην arrfjpe ^ιαδεξαμίνον την άρχην Kolvtov Πομπηίου 
(τον) Αυλού. (ό δε άδίλφόϊ αντον Μάξιμο: Αιμιλιανός MS., omitted by editors), ίφ' oh δ 
Ουρ'ιατθος ονχ ομοίως en καταφρονωρ Άρονακονς κα\ Ύίτθονς κα\ BeWovs . . . άπίστησεν απο Ρωμαίων. 
κα\ πολΐμον άλλον Οίδβ εφ' ίαντων (ττολίμουν ον €Κ πόλεως αυτών μιας 'ί^ομαντΊνον ηγούνται . . . και 
συνάξω κα\ τόνδε ες εν μετ Ούρίατθον. Ονρίατθος μεν επι θάτερα της 'ϊβηρίας έτερω στρατηγψ 

'Ρωμαίων Κοϊντίω {Q. PoTtipeio in a 1 6th century translation of Appian made from another 

MS., now lost) σννετΐλίκετο, και . . . έκτεινε των Κοϊντίου ες (τους Κοϊντιείους MS.) χιλίους και 
σημεία τίνα ηρπασε .... Κοϊντίου (Κιντίου MS.) δια 8ειλίαν και άπειρίαν ουκ επιβοηθοΰντος, αλλ' εν 
ΚορΒΰβη χειμάζοντος εκ μέσου μετοπώρου . . . του δ' επιόντος έτους Κοΐντω {Κοϊντίω Other editors) 
μεν 6 άδίλφόρ Αίμιλιανοΰ Φάβιος Μάξιμος Σερουιλιανος (Αίμιλιανος MS.) ηλθεν επι την στρατηγίαν 

διάδοχος. From this confused and corrupt account it has been generally inferred that 
a praetor Quinctius succeeded Fabius Aemilianus in Southern Spain in b.c 143, was 
defeated in that year and was succeeded in b.c 142 by Q. Fabius Servilianus. We now 
know that in Livy's account the governor in B.C. 142 was the consul for that year, 
L. Metellus, and that Fabius Servilianus became governor in b.c 141. Assuming that 
Livy is right, the discrepancy may be explained in two ways: either Appian has made 
several mistakes in his facts or the MS. is still more deeply corrupt than it has appeared to 
be. On the first hypothesis Quinctius or Quintus, the supposed praetor, may he retained, 
for owing to the loss of a column between Cols, vi and vii of the papyrus it is uncertain 
who in Livy's history was the governor of Southern Spain in b. c 143. We must however 
assume that Appian omitted L. Metellus altogether, thus setting the chronology wrong by 
a year. But considering the corruptions in the proper names in Appian, Iber, 65-7, it is, 
we think, far more likely that the story of the defeat of the supposed Quinctius, who appears 


nowhere else in history, is a distortion of the defeat of L. Metellus mentioned by Livy. 
With two brothers, Q. Metellus and L. Metellus, governing the two Spains in 142 b. c. it is 
not at all surprising that mistakes should arise, and if KoiWtos in Iber. 66-7 is a corruption 
of ΛουκιοΓ or KatKiXios, there will be no conflict between Livy and Appian as to the pre- 
decessor of Fabius Servilianus. Dismissing therefore the supposed Quinctius, there still 
remains the governorship of Southern Spain for b. c. 143 to be accounted for. The 
passage in Appian referring to Aemilianus' successor Κοΐντον Πομπηίου Αΰλου is obviously 
quite corrupt. The insertion of τοΰ before Αΰλου (Schweighauser, followed by Mendelssohn) 
does little to mend matters. There is no point in the mention of the father's praenomen and 
there is clearly a confusion in the text between this person and the Κυίντω Ιίομπηίω Αϋλω 
mentioned in Ider. 76. That Q. Pompeius was consul in b.c. 141 and succeeded Q. Metellus 
as governor of Northern Spain in the same year (cf. 1. 174). His cognomen was Rufus, so 
that editors bracket Ανλω in ch. 76. In any case this Quintus Pompeius cannot be the 
successor of Aemilianus in b.c. 143, and the best course seems to be to fall back on the 
statement of Valerius Maximus (ix. 3. 7, v. sup.) that Q. Metellus governed utramque 
Hispaniam. Seeing that Aemilianus governed both provinces for two years, there is not the 
least diflBculty in supposing that his successor did the same for one, but that in the second 
year a separate governor was sent to the Southern province. On this hypothesis we would 

suggest that ILotvrov Πομπηίου Αυλού in Ider. 65 is Corrupt for Κοΐντου Καικιλίου Μΐτίλλου, and 

that the following words δ δε αδελφό? αντοΰ Μάξιμος Αίμιλιανό:, which are simply omitted by 
editors, really contained a reference to the brother of Q. Metellus, L. Metellus. The 
sentence is in that case incomplete and the lacuna may well have supplied some details 
about the events of b.c. 143-2 which would have made ch. 66 much more intelligible. 
Our conclusion therefore is that the divergence between Livy and Appian's account of the 
war against Viriathus is due less to mistakes on the part of Appian than to the extra- 
ordinary perversions of the proper names in the MS. of the Iberica, and that Appian's 
chronology of this war can without much difficulty be made consistent with the newly found 

For the sake of clearness we append in parallel columns a list of the governors of 
Southern Spain from b.c. 145-37 as they are known from the two epitomes of Livy, 
compared with the list given by Mommsen. Concerning the governors of Northern Spain 
there is no dispute, Q. Fabius Maximus Aemilianus holding office in b.c. 145-4, Q. Caecilius 
Metellus in b.c 143-2, Q. Pompeius Rufus in b.c 141-0, and M. Popillius Laenas in 
B.C. 139-8: — 

B.C. Livy. Mommsen. 

145-4 Q• Fabius Maximus Aemilianus. Q. Fab. Max. Aemilianus. 

143 (Q. Caecilius Metellus cons. ?) Quinctius praetor. 

142 L. Caecilius Metellus cons. Q. Fab. Max. Servilianus cons. 

141 Q. Fab. Max. Servilianus proc. Q. Fab. Max. Servilianus proc. 

140 Q. Fab. Max. Servilianus proc. Q. Servilius Caepio cons. 

(Later Q. Servilius Caepio cons.) 

139 Q. Servilius Caepio proc. Q. Servilius Caepio proc. 

138 D. lunius Brutus cons. D. Junius Brutus cons. 

168-9. Epit. mentions the triumph of Mummius at the end of Book 52, Z. Mummius 
de Achaeis triumphavit, signa aerea marmoreaque el tabulas pictas in triumpho iulit. Epit. 53 
begins with a mention of Appius Claudius, consul in b.c 143; hence the triumph of 
Mummius has naturally been assigned to b.c 145, the year after the destruction of Corinth. 


The distribution of the works of art mentioned by the papyrus is to be connected, as 
Kornemann remarks, not with Mummius' triumph, which can hardly have taken place so 
late as b.c. 142, but with his censorship which occurred in that year. By oppida are meant 
the country towns of Italy, and perhaps of the provinces as well. 

1 7 1-2. On the victory of Q. Fabius (Maximus Servilianus) cf. Epit. 53 a Q. Fabio 
proconsule pars magna Lusitaniae expugnatis aliquot urhibus recepta est, and, for the 
chronology, 1. 167, note. 

174. This defeat of Q. Pompeius by the Numantines agrees with the received 
chronology; cf. Epit. 54 ad init. and 1. 167, note. For d[eviciu\s cf. 1. 185. 

175. The defeat of the Romans by the Scordisci, a Pannonian tribe, is a new fact. 
The Roman commander may have been the other consul, Gn. Caepio. 

176. The corruption ol Sapiente into Salasso seems to be due to a reminiscence of the 
campaign of Appius Claudius against the Salassi in B.C. 143 ; cf. Epit. 53. 

177-8. What was this obviously important measure due to Appius Claudius, one of the 
most striking figures at this period ? The papyrus fails us at the most critical point, and 
in the absence of any other reference to this reform, we are reduced to conjectures. We 
have adopted in 1. 177 duos [delectus], a suggestion of Mr. Warde Fowler based on 
duo s[tipendta] proposed by Dr. Greenidge, The old Roman system of a single annual 
levy in which the soldiers swore allegiance to a general for a single campaign could not 
survive the growth of Rome as a world-city, and though the successive modifications which 
were introduced in the later period of the Republic cannot be clearly traced, it is in itself 
likely enough that the wars of the third and second centuries b. c. had led to the occasional 
or frequent holding of levies twice instead of once in the year. Such an attempt to 
frustrate the constant demands of the generals as we have attributed to Appius Claudius does 
not seem improbable, and may even be connected with the refusal of the senate a few years 
later to send Scipio the reinforcements which he asked for at Numantia. 

178-81. Cf. Epit. 54, where the incident of the condemnation of Silanus by his father 
is related more fully. 

182-4. These lines are very corrupt, and in the absence of any parallel account of the 
incident it is difiicult to restore them in entirety. So much is clear that the consul 
Q. Caepio's departure for Spain was delayed by the interpellation of a tribune, but that 
Caepio successfully overcame the obstacle. It was doubtless owing to this episode that 
Caepio arrived in Spain late in the year after the defeat of Fabius Maximus (11. 185-6); cf, 
1. 167, note. Assilium is for Asellum ; cf. Gell. 3. 4, where a tribune called Claudius 
Asellus is mentioned as having accused the younger Scipio Africanus posiquam de Poenis 
triumphaverat censorque/uerai. Since Scipio was censor in b.c. 142 {Fast. CapiioL), b.c 140 
is very suitable as the year of Asellus' tribunate, reddeterhuit is probably for deierruit, and 
if l[fciores is right irigem probably represents a participle ending in ens, e.g. adhibens. 
Omitting indelegem, which is hopeless, the passage may be restored thus : Quintus Caepio 
consul . . . Tiber ium Claudium Asellum iribunum plebis interpellantem profectionem suam 
lictores . . . ens deterruit. What form the interpellation took is not clear. Did the tribune 
veto the Lex Curiata conferring imperium upon the consul.? Possibly, as Greenidge 
suggests, he tried to prevent the consul from taking out his troops, as in Sail. Jug. 39 
consul impeditus a tribunis plebis ne quas paraverat copias secum portaret. From the mention 
of the lictors it seems that Caepio actually ventured to retaliate by using force of some kind. 

185-6. On the date of Fabius' defeat see 1, 167, note. 

186-7. Valerius INIaximus (iii. 2. 21) relates two exploits of Q. Occius; cf. 11. 164-6, 
note. The present incident is one of the reliqua eius opera which Valerius Maximus 
passes over. 


188-90. A verb such as pugnavit is wanted at the beginning of 1. 188, and there is 
then not room for more than two or three letters before \mae. Probably devota est 
is to be connected with aqua Anio (cf 11. iii and 116, where the verb does not come 
at the end of the sentence), and aqua Marcia begins a fresh sentence. On the repair 
of the aqua Anio and the construction of the aqua Marcia see Frontinus, De Aquaeductibus 
i. 7.^ He there states that in b. c. 144 the praetor Marcius Rex was commissioned to 
repair the Appian and Aniensian aqueducts and to construct a new one, his praetorship 
being extended for a year on that account. Then follows a passage which is much 
corrupted in the editions of Frontinus, and which we quote from the reproduction of 
the best MS. in C. Herschell's edition: eo tempore decemviri dum aliis ex causis libros 
Sibyllinos inspiciunt invenisse dicuntur (space in MS.; supply fas) aquam Martiam 
seu potius Anienem, de hoc enim constantius traditur, in Capitolium perduci, deque ea re 
in senatu M. Lepido pro collegio verba faciente actum Appio Claudio Q. Caecilio consulibus 
(b. c. 143); eandemque post annum tertium a Lucia Lentulo retractatam C. Laelio Q. Ser- 
vilio consulibus (b. c. 140), sed utroque tempore vicisse gratiam Marcii Regis atque ita in 
Capitolium esse aquam perductam. Frontinus' statements about the construction of the 
aqua Marcia are thus in complete accord with Livy, from whose history they were no 
doubt derived. But what is the meaning of seu potius Anienem, de hoc enim constantius 
iradiiur, and has this anything to do with the mention of the aqua Anio in 1. 188? That 
passage in the papyrus is unfortunately extremely obscure. If devota est is correct, it 
must mean that the Anio aqueduct was consecrated to some deity; but devota does not 
seem the right word, and it is more likely to be corrupt, possibly for some word like renovata 
or refecta. The aqua Marcia began not far from Tibur, the water being apparently 
taken from a tributary of the river Anio from which the aqua Anio was also derived. 
But the two aqueducts were quite distinct, and seu potius Anienem, de hoc enim constantius 
iraditur seems, as Reid remarks, to indicate that there were two interpretations of the 
oracle, one permitting the aqua Anio to be brought to the Capitol, the other the aqua 
Marcia, but the general opinion was in favour of the former interpretation ; cf. the 
statement in 1. 189 that the construction of the aqua Marcia was contra Sibyllae carmifta. 
Since Frontinus implies that the aqua Anio was not carried up to the Capitol, to read 
in II. 189-90 aqua Anio {et) aqua Marcia in Capitolium . . . perductae is unsatisfactory, 
apart from the difficulty of placing a slop after devota est. 

192. Probably the scribe wrote urbetilia meaning urbe ei Italia; cf. Val. Max. i. 3. 2 
C. Cornelius Hispallus praetor peregrinus M. Popilio Laenate Cn. Calpurnio coss. edicto 
Chaldaeos intra decimum diem abire ex urbe atque Italia iussit, a passage no doubt based 
upon Livy. 

i93~4• On the Lex Gabinia tabellaria see Cic. Legg. iii. 35. Cicero says that it was 
lata ab homine ignoto et sordido, which confirms the present reference to Gabinius' base 
ancestry. What degree of relationship to the verna was alleged by Livy is uncertain. 
verna[e filius is unlikely, for the son of a slave could not be made tribune, and though two 
cases at least of the son of a freedman becoming tribune are known (Mommsen, Staats- 
recht,\. p. 460), the phrase vernae filius does not suggest the meaning 'son of freedman' or 
' of a freedwoman,' though perhaps not incompatible with it. vernc{e nepos is better, but 
of course some more indefinite word may have been employed. It has been generally 
supposed that A. Gabinius the tribune was the son of the Gabinius who held a command in 
Illyria under L. Anicius in b.c. 167 (Livy 45. 26); but this is quite uncertain. 

195-6. As Warde Fowler suggests, it is probable that these two lines refer to the 
mutiny of Caepio's cavalry mentioned by Dio (Fr. 78 Boissevain), in consequence of his 
apportioning to them a specially dangerous operation. Caepio had to take refuge from 


their violence in flight, and with this clue the passage may be restored on the lines which 
we have suggested. Since a nail is not a very effective weapon of attack, clavo may be 
altered to clava, a ' cudgel ' or ' foil.' Reid well compares Oros. v. 9 clavae ictu (of Tiberius 
Gracchus' death). 

197-8. The names of the murderers of Viriathus are not given in Epit., but occur in 
Appian, Iber. 74, where they agree with the papyrus, and in Diodorus exc. c. 24, where 
Nikorones is found instead of Minurus. 

201-2. For the refusal of a reward to Viriathus' murderers cf Dio, Fr. 80, and Eutro- 
pius, iv. 16. Appian {Iber. 74) mentions the bribe, but not the refusal, διαφθαρίρτί: νπ-ό τοΰ 

Καιπίωνος δώροις re μ(γά\οις και υποσχίσίσι ιτοΧΚαΐί, The Epitome doeS not mention either, 

but has Viriathus a prodiloribus consilio Servilii Caepionis inter/ecius est. From the fact 
that the refusal took place in the year after Viriathus' death it clearly came from the senate ; 
and if there is any truth in the story of Dio and Eutropius about the answer given to the 
murderers that the Romans did not approve of a general being killed by his own soldiers, 
this must have been made by the senate, not, as they state, by Caepio. 

202-5. Cf Epit. 55 P. Nasica, cui cognomen Serapion/uit ab irridente Curiatio tribuno 
pubis impositum, et D. lunio Bruto consulibus delectum habentibus in conspectu tironum res 
saluberrimi exempli facta est : nam C. Matienus accusatus est apud tribunes plebis quod exer- 
citum in Hispania deseruisset, damnatusque sub /urea diu virgis caesus est, et sestertio nummo 
veniit. tribuni plebis quia non impetrarent ut sibi denos quos vellent milites eximere liceret, 
consules in carcerem duci iusserunt. The papyrus presents several new details. In the first 
place the condemnation of deserters (11. 207-9) comes after the dispute with the tribunes, 
not before it. Besides the probable mention of Curiatius, to whom Cicero {Legg. iii. 9) 
assigns the responsibility for throwing the consuls into prison, the papyrus names another 
tribune, Licinius, thus justifying the plural tribuni in Epit. From 1. 205 it appears that the 
imprisonment was unpopular and that the tribunes had to yield. For the use of multa 
by Livy in the general sense of ' penalty ' cf. 24. 16. In 1. 202 Scipi]on[em is very doubtful. 
There may have been some corruption as in the case of Decimum Brutum in 1. 203. 

205-7• kf•^) omnibus luctus seems a better correction of omnib. lucii than omnibus 
luctui, though whether Livy would have used luctus is doubtful; cf. note on 1. 110. These 
lines refer to the death in b.c. 138 of a popular tribune who ' having done much for the 
good of the people expired amid universal regret.' His name was given at the end of 

I. 205. It would be expected that this individual was important enough to be known to 
history, and, as Warde Fowler and Reid suggest, there may well be a connexion between 

II. 205-7 ^^^ a passage in Pliny {H. N, xxi. 10) florum quidem populus Romanus honorem 
Scipioni tantum habuit. Serapio cognominabatur propter similitudinem suarii cuiusdam 
negotiatoris. obierat in tribunatu plebei admodum gratus dignusque A/ricanorum familia, nee 
erat in bonis funeris impensa. asses ergo contulit populus ac/unus elocavit quaque praeterfere- 
batur flores e prospectu omni sparsit. Whether by Serapio Pliny meant Scipio Nasica 
Corculum, the consul of b.c 162 and 155, or his son, the consul of B.C. 138, in either case 
the statement that he died as tribune is an extraordinary error. It is very significant that 
the papyrus also mentions the death of a popular tribune immediately after a mention 
of Scipio Nasica the younger, and, as Warde Fowler remarks, if something like Nasicae 
filius or /rater be restored at the end of 1. 205 and Pliny's Serapio be the same person, the 
difficulties in the Pliny passage would be largely reduced. 

207-9. co[]un[ may be the beginning of a short sentence complete in itself If it is 
connected with 11, 208-9, it probably refers to the part taken by the consuls in the punish- 
ment of the deserters. On this cf the passage from Epit, 55 quoted in 11. 202-5, note, 
where only one individual, C. Matienus, is mentioned. Frontinus, however {Strateg. 



iv. I. 20), agrees with the papyrus, qui exercitum deseruerant damnati, virgis caesi publice 
venierunt. sestertiis singulis is equivalent to sestertio nummo singuli. 

210-1. It is probable that these lines refer to the famous accusation of L. Aurelius 
Cotta by Scipio Aemilianus. This resulted in the acquittal of the accused because the 
judges did not wish the influence of Scipio to appear too overwhelming, if we may believe 
Cicero, Pro Murena 58 saepe hoc viaiores natu dicere audivi hanc accusatoris eximiam 
dignitatem plurimum L. Cottae pro/uisse. noluerunt sapientissimi homines qui tum rem illam 
iudicabant ita quemquam cadere in iudicio ut nimis adversarii viribus abiectus videretur (cf. 
Diyin. in Caec. 21), though Appian {Bell Civ, i. 22) is probably right in saying that 
bribery was employed, {propter) magnitudinem noni\inis would accord very well with the 
eximia dignitas of Cicero. The objection to this interpretation is that Cicero (Pro Mur. 
and Divin. in Caecil. locc. citt) says that Aemilianus had been twice consul when he 
brought the accusation, and the second consulship of Aemilianus was in b.c. 134 while the 
event recorded in the papyrus took place in b.c 138, Against the evidence of Cicero, 
however, must be set the circumstance that in the earliest editions (based on the Codex 
Sangallensis, now lost) of the commentary of Pseudo-Asconius upon that passage in the 
Divin. ad Caecil. occurs the remark L. Cottam P. Africanus ante secundum consulatum et 
censuram dicitur accusasse. Other MSS. of Pseudo-Asconius have post instead of ante, and 
post has generally been regarded as correct, though the remark is then rather pointless 
since it simply repeats the statement of Cicero. But the agreement between the papyrus 
and one version of Pseudo-Asconius is remarkable, though it is difficult to believe that 
Pseudo-Asconius can be right in placing the trial before Scipio's censorship, which took 
place in b.c. 142. The question is further complicated by the uncertainty regarding the 
nature of the accusations made against Cotta and the official standing in which he had 
rendered himself Uable to them. Was he the consul of b.c 144 or the consul of b.c 119 
(so Jahn in his note on Cic. Brut. 81) t If the former, the date which the papyrus suggests 
for the trial, b.c 138, is more suitable than Cicero's. If the latter, then Cicero's date is the 
more probable, for the younger Cotta might well have been praetor about b.c 133-29, and 
his insignificance would suit the peculiar feature of the case which seems to have impressed 
itself upon the popular imagination. 

On the whole, in spite of the evidence of Appian who connects the acquittal of Cotta 
with C. Gracchus' law de iudiciis, and the circumstance that Cicero mentions it {Div. in 
Caec. I. c.) together with the trial of Aquillius which certainly seems to have taken place 
after Scipio's return from Numantia, we incline to the view not only that Livy placed the 
trial of Cotta in b.c 138 but that he was right in so doing. Cicero, in the Pro Murena 
passage at any rate, had a point to make which would be helped by assigning the trial to 
the period after Scipio's second consulship, and it is not difficult to suppose him guilty of 
a chronological error in a speech. Moreover, the commentary of Pseudo-Asconius seems 
to indicate that there were ancient doubts as to Cicero's correctness on this matter ; and if 
Livy was right with regard to the date of the trial, L. Cotta was probably the consul of 
B.C. 144, who, as Valerius Maximlis states (vi. 4. 2), was in that year prevented by Scipio 
from going to Lusitania, and against whom Scipio may well have continued to bear 
a grudge. 

212. Lusitani vastati: the proceedings of D. Junius Brutus in Southern Spain are 
meant; cf. Epit. 55 Junius Brutus consul in Hispania iis qui sub Viriaiho militaverant 
agros et oppidum dedit, quod Valentia vocatum est, Appian, Iber. 71, and notes on 11. 167 
and 216-7. 

a N[umanyin[is clades accepta: for the restoration cf. 1. 175. The allusion is to the 
defeat of M. Popilius; cf. Epit., which is more detailed, and 1. 167, note. 

I 2 


2 1 3-4. Cf. Epit. which is longer in its account of Antiochus' death but mentions it at 
the end of the book after the successes of Brutus, and omits the detail that Diodotus took 
possession of Syria. The year to which Antiochus' death is referred by the papyrus 
(b.c. 138) conflicts with the date (b.c. 143-2) recently proposed by Niese {Gesc/i. d. gr. u. 
mak. St. iii. p. 283), chiefly on the evidence of coins. 

216-7. Cf. Epit. D. lunius Lusitaniam triginia urbium expugnaiionibus usque ad occa- 
sum et Oceanum perdomuit ; et cum fluvium Oblivionem transire nollent milites ereptum signi- 
fero signum ipse transiulii, et sic ut transgrederentur persuasii. The account of Book 55 in 
the papyrus probably ended here. 

218-25. This fragment which was gummed on to Col. iv probably, if Sullanis is 
correct, belonged to a much later book. 

226-32. This fragment was gummed on to Col. v. 

669• Metrological Work. 

17-5 X 15-3 ^^• 

On the recto of this papyrus are parts of two columns of an account of 
corn, mentioning the second = first and third = second years, i. e. of Diocletian 
and Maximian (a. d. 285-6 and 386-7). On the verso, written in a cursive 
hand not more than a few years later than the writing on the recto, are parts 
of two columns of a series of metrological tables concerning measures of length 
and area. As in the contemporary metrological fragment from Oxyrhynchus 
(9 verso) the spelling is bad, and from the unsystematic way in which the 
details are arranged they seem to be private memoranda compiled from a larger 
treatise. Lines 1-4 deal with the σχοινίον, the measure of length usually 
employed in land-surveys, of which the square was the aroura. In 11. 5-8 we 
have a general description of cubits arranged according to the three dimensions 
of space ; 11. 9-10 treat of the οίκοττώικοί τιηχνί, a peculiar kind of cubit which 
differed from the three previously mentioned, and 11. 11-24 of the measurements 
and uses of the ξύΚον. Col. ii begins with a list of measures of length in which 
Graeco-Egyptian and Roman names are, as would be expected at this period, 
mixed (11. 26-30). There follows (11. 30-42) a table of the sizes of these from 
the δάκτυλο? or τταλαιστηΫ to the ακαινα or perhaps αμμα. Then begins another 
section describing the δάκτυλο?, in the middle of which the papyrus breaks off. 
In both columns the lines are incomplete, and it is impossible in some cases to 
fill up the lacunae ; but the papyrus usefully supplements the existing evidence 
concerning the σχ^οινίον and oUonebiubs τ^ήχυζ, and provides some interesting new 
information about the names and length of different kinds of ττηχει? used in 
Egypt. The section dealing with the ξύλον, most of which can be restored with 



certainty, not only shows that there were two kinds of ξύλα which stood to each 
other in the ratio of 9 : 8 , but provides an important indication of the size of 
that much discussed measure, the νανβιον, which was probably a cubic ^λον ; cf. 
note on 11. 11-20. 

It is to be hoped that the whole subject of Graeco-Egyptian metrology 
will soon be rehandled by a new writer. The Metrologie of Hultsch is now 
antiquated, and the recent articles of the veteran metrologist in the Archiv fiir 
Papyrusforschung and Abhand. d. kon. Sachs. Ges. d. Wiss. 1903 : Die Ptole- 
mdischen Miinz- und Recknungsiuerte, show an inability to appreciate the new 
evidence of papyri. 




Col. i. 

€^€ί TO σ•^οινίον\ TO γ€ωμ€τρικον ωγβοα η, 
το Se ογδοον €χ€ί] 7η7χίί ιβ, ώστ€ €χ€ΐν το 
σγοινίον το y€Co]/i€Tyo[tAf]oi' πηχών α<7• 

τδ Sh ]κ:δν Ιστιν πηχών ρ. 

6 €ν6νμ€τρί]κο5 πήχεις ίσ-τιν δ κατά 
μήκος μορον] μετρούμενος, εμβαδικος 
Se ό κατά, μήκο]9 και πλάτος, στέρεος 8ε δ κα- 
τά μήκος και πλ]άτος και βάθος ηται νψος. 
δ ] . ς (ρ)Ικοπε8ικος πήχις έ- 
χει εμβαδικονς πή]χις ρ. 
τω δε ξνλω καταμίετρΐΐτα"^ τά νανβια• το μεν βα- 
σιλικδν εστί π]ηχων γ, 
παλαιστών ] ιη, 
δακτύλων ] οβ. 

το δ\ ] ίστίν πηχών ββ\ 

παλαιστών ] ί<^, 

δακτύλων ] ζδ. 

ωστ εχειν τδ σχοινίον] τδ γεωμετρικον 
^ύλα βασιλικά ] λ)3, 

iύλa ] λς-. 

τετ]f}aγώvoυ έχει ^ύλον α, 



8η]μ6σιον vav- 

'5 [β•- 

I. 1. oyboa. 3. 1. iTTixiis. 5. 

1. πηχυς. 1 9• λ of λ/3 COIT. from o. 


8. 1. ήτοι. 

9. tKOJTcStKOf Pap. 

Col. ii. 

μίτρων ϊδη earir τ[άδ€' δάκτυλοι 
τταλΐστηζ λιχ{ν\ας σ•π[ίθαμη novs πυγων 
πήχνς βήμα ξύλον [οργυια κάλαμος 
άκ€να άμμα πΧίθρον [ίούγ€ρον στάδι- 

3θ ον δίανλον μιΚιον. 8^ 

οί β παλΐσταΐ λίχΙΐ'Ι^Γ, οι γ παλίσταΐ 

σπιθαμή, οι δ πους α[ , οι € 

nf})(V9 λινοϋφικος [και ήτοι 

ττνγών, οΐ τ τταλΐσται [πη)(νς δημό- 

35 σίοί κ€ τ€κτονικ6ς, οι [ζ τταλεσταί πήχν^ 

Νιλομζτρικόί, οί η ΤΓ^χΓ^ν? 

οΐ ι βήμα, βήμα δί eaTi[u ή διάστασις 
των ποδών, οι γ πήχ[€ΐ9 ξύλον δη- 
μδσι[ο]ν, οί δ όργνιά, &^ργυια δύ ίστιν 

4θ J7 διάστασΐ9 των \ιρω[ν, οί . πή)ζ€ΐ5 

κάλαμος, οί ^τβ' ακ€να, οί [ 

οι eiai πήχΐ9. [ 

δάκτυλο? ω πάντα κατ[ τού- 
του μίζονα και σύνμζτρα [και τα βλάσ- 

45 σονα τούτου μ€σ€ΐτΐύζται [ 

δ.. .[.]. λίχΚ•] . Χιχγ[ 

2 7• 1. πα'Καιστψ: SO in 11. 31, 34• 33• λινοϋφικοί Pap. 35• ϊ• '''"'• 37• <" * 

Pap. 39• οργυϊα Pap. 42• ίΠ7Χίϊ" Ρ^ρ. 

1-30. ' The schoenium used in land-survey has 8 eighths, and the eighth has 1 2 cubits, 
so that the schoenium used in land-survey has 96 cubits, while the . . . schoenium has 


100 cubits. The linear cubit is that which is measured by length alone, the plane 
cubit is that which is measured by length and breadth; the solid cubit is that which 
is measured by length and breadth and depth or height. The . . . building cubit ccntains 
100 plane cubits. Νπύβία are measured by the ^iXov, the royal ξνΚον contains 3 cubits, 

18 παλαισταί, 72 δάκτυλο», while the . . . ξύλον contains 2f cubits, 1 6 πάΧαισταί and 

64 ΒάκτνΙοι ; so that the schoenium used in land-survey contains 32 royal ξνλα and 36 

. . . ζνΧα. 

31-41. *2 τταλαισταΐ make a λίχο'ί, 3 ποΧαισταί a σπιθαμή, 4 πάλαισταί an (Eg)'ptian ?) 

foot, 5 a cloth-weaver's cubit . . . , 6 παλαισταί a public and a carpenter's cubit, 7 πολαισταί 
a Nilometric cubit, 8 πολαισταί a . . . cubit, 10 πάλαισταΐ a βήμα, which is the distance 
of the outstretched feet. 3 cubits make a public ξύΐον, 4 cubits an Spyvia, which is the 
distance of the outstretched hands. . . cubits make a κάλαμος, 6| an ακαινη.' 

1-4. On this σχοινίον, which was unknown when Hultsch wrote his Metrologie, see 
Kenyon, P. Brit. Mus. II. p. 130, and P. Tebt. I. p. 386. The details of the papyrus 
exactly fit the previous evidence, which was that the αχοινΊον corresponded to the ancient 
Egyptian measure khei or khet η nuh of 100 royal cubits, but nevertheless was divided 
into the series \,\, -^, g^ and so on like the aroura. The papyrus now shows that 
in surveying land the σχοινΊον was sometimes treated as having 96 cubits, probably for 
the sake of convenient fractions, but that there was also a σχοινίον of 100 cubits. The 
name of the latter in 1. 4 may be οΙκοιΐ(^ϊ}κ6ν. The ratio of these two σχοινιά of 96 and 
100 cubits corresponds, as Mr. Smyly rem^arks, to the ratio of 24 : 25 between tAvo kinds 
of cubits in Roman times ; cf. note on 11. 34-5. 

9-10. The oiKojTiStKos πηχνς was supposed by A. Peyron (P. Taur. I. pp. 133-6) 
to be a parallelogram measuring 100 cubits by i cubit. His explanation, which has 
been accepted by all editors, is now confirmed by the papyrus, which states that an 
οί'κοττεδίκόϊ π^χνς contained 100 square cubits. The adjective lost in the lacuna is very 
likely π*ριστ{ ) which is found in P. Brit. Mus. 119 and Wilcken, Osf. II. 1301 before 
πήχης as a measure of area. But how the abbreviation is to be resolved is uncertam. 
Wilcken {OsL I. p. 780) suggests π^ρισταληκός : περιστατικός seems to us more likely. 

11-20. The restoration of this important passage, though at first sight it may seem 
rather hazardous, is really practically certain. It is clear from τό μίν in 1. 11 that the 
figures in 11. 12-4 are contrasted with those in 11. 15-7, and since those in 11. 12 and 15 
refer to πήχης, those in 11. 13 and 16 must refer to πολαισταί, of which there were 6 in 
an ordinary πηχυς (cf. 11. 34-5), and those in 11. 14 and 17 to Βάκτνλοι of which 4 make 
a παλαιστής. This being granted, the figures in 11. 12-7 refer to a measure of length, 
and the substantive to be supplied with τό μίν cannot be ναίβιον, which is known to 
be a measure of cubic capacity. There is only one measure of length known to have 
contained 3 πήχεις, and that is the ξύλον (1. 38), and though no ξνλον of 2| πήχης was 
known previously, the fact that in 11. 38-9 the ξύλον of 3 πήχης is called Βημόσιον indicates 
that, as would be expected, more than one kind was in use. If then τό μίν m 1. 11 
means a particular kind of ξΰλον, some such restoration as [τω 8e ξύλω καταμετρητά} 
becomes necessary, and the correctness of this hypothesis is confirmed by 11. 18-20. 
The figure in 1. 20 stands to that in 1. 19 in the same proportion (9 : 8) as those m 
11. 12-4 to those in 11. 15-7. τό γ^ωμετρικόν (1. i8) has already (1. i) been applied to 
the σχοινίο./, and 1. 19 with the restoration suggested will be the corollary of 1. 3. The 
only difficulty that arises is that the ξύλον of 3 πήχης is in 1. 11 called βα[σιλικόρ while 
in 1. 38 it is said to be 8η]μόσι[ο^ ; but in view of the extent to which δημόσιος m Roman 


times supplanted the Ptolemaic term βασιλικό! (e. g. in connexion with τράπβζα and yeapyos ; 
cf. 500. 13, note), this objection is not serious. The chief interest of this section about 
the ξύλον lies in the light which it throws upon the size of the ναύβιον (1. ii). On 
that obscure cubic measure used in digging operations see P. Tebt. 5. 15, note, and 
P. Petrie III. From the fact that the ξύλορ was the particular measure used for calculating 
νανβια, it is difficult to avoid the inference that a ναύβιον was a ξύλον in length, and 
since there is every reason to think that its dimensions were equal, most probably 
a ναύβιον was a cubic ξύλον, and as there were two sizes of ξύλα so there were also 

two kinds of νανβια. 

21-5. The subject of these lines is obscure; but from the occurrence of τΐτράγωνον 
in 1. 21 it appears that some area was under discussion. It is not unlikely that τ6 pev 
μήκος is to be supplied at the beginning of 1. 21 and \τ6 8e πλάτος ξύλον] in 1. 22, and 
that the four-sided figure in question was the square face of a ναύβιον or cube measuring 
3 πήχης each way. ναύβια are probably still under discussion in 1. 24. 

26-30. For this list of measures of length cf. the Tabulae Heronianae, especially 
I (Hultsch, Script. Metrol. i. pp. 182 sqq.). 

29. aKtva : both forms ακ^να and ακαινα are commonly found, but the latter is the more 
correct ; cf. Hultsch, op. cif. p. 29. 

30. It is probable that the list ended with μΐλιον like those in Tabulae Heronianae 
III and VII. The only larger measures of length were the σχόΐνος and παρασάγγης. 
δ[ may be the beginning of δάκτυλοι, since the following details proceed in an ascending 
scale, and ought to have begun with the smallest measure. But we should expect 
ot δ δάκτυλοι παΚαιστψ, which is much too long, and the ^άκτνλος has a section devoted 
to it in 11. 43 sqq. 

31. The size ascribed in the papyrus to the λιχάί, σπιθαμή (1. 32), πυγων (1. 34), 
βήμα (1. 37)> οργνιά (1. 39)> ^^^ ακαινα (1. 41), agree with the statements of the Tabulae 
Heronianae and add no new facts. 

32. The names given by the ancient metrologists to the ordinary foot of 4 παΚαισταί 

to distinguish it from the 'Ρωμαικίίί or ^ΙταΚικος πους of 3^ παλαισταί are βασιλικός, Ώτολιμαικός, 

and Φιλΐταιρικός ; but none of these will suit, ί^ιyύπτιoς is not unlikely ; ihe first letter 
is certainly α or λ, δ or /χ being excluded. 

33. κα'ι might be supplied in 1. 32 instead of οί t, which would then follow λινοΰφικός; 
but no cubit smaller than the normal one of 6 παλαισταί was known previously, and it is 
therefore much more probable that the ' cloth-weaver's cubit ' contained 5 παλαισταί 
than 4. 

34-5. This cubit of 6 παλαισταί is the common πηχυς, found in the Tabulae 
Heronianae, but is there also called λιβικός and ξνλοπριστικός. A π^;!^υΓ reXetoi ξνλικος τΐκτονικάς 
occurs in P. Brit. Mus. 154. 7; for 8ημ6\σιος cf. 1. 38 ξύλον δ7;]/χόσι[ο]ΐ' and 11. 11-20, note. 
There was another cubit introduced into Egypt in Roman times which stood to the 
cubit of 6 παλαισταί in the ratio of 25 : 24 (Hultsch, ap. Wilcken, Osl. I. p. 753), but 
this does not seem to be mentioned here by the papyrus, though it is perhaps, as 
Mr. Smyly suggests, implied by the number, 96, of cubits in a σχοινίον in 1. 3. 

35-6. The title Νιλομ(τρικ6ς πηχνς is new, but that the cubit used in measuring 
the rise and fall of the Nile contained 7 παλαισταί instead of 6 was known from the 
inscriptions on the subject at Elephantine; cf. C. I. G. 4863. This cubit of 7 παλαισταί 
is that normally used in official measurements upon ancient Egyptian monuments, and 
Mr. Smyly thinks that it was also employed in measuring the mysterious άωίλια which 
occur in the Petrie papyri. Its usual title (not found here) was the 'royal' cubit 
(Hultsch, Introd. to Scrip/. Metrol. p. 25, &c., is wrong on this point). 


36. This cubit of 8 π<ΐΚαισταί or 2 feet is frequently mentioned in the Tabulae 
Heronianae, but without any special designation. Since it was apparently introduced 
into Egypt by the Romans (Hultsch, Script. Meirol. p. 42, Metrol. p. 618), 'Pw/iawcds 
or Ιταλικοί is very likely to be supplied in the lacuna. 

37. The βήμα of 10 -παΚαιστω. is the Ordinary one, but βήματα of 8 and 12 παλαισταί 

also occur; cf. Hultsch, Scrip/. Meirol. pp. 194. 3 and 197. 23. 

38-9. No ξ,νΚον except that of 3 cubits was known previously ; on the δημόσιον 
and the other ξνλορ with which it was contrasted see 11. 11-20, note. 

40. The κάλαμος, which was according to Tabulae Heronianae I an ancient Egyptian 
land-measure, is stated in the same table (Hultsch, Script. Metrol. p. 183. 3) to contain 
6§ cubits or 10 feet of 4 παλαισταί. This is also the size assigned in the Tabulae 
Heronianae to the ακαινα or ακΐνα; cf. 1. 41. Hence Hultsch supposed that κάλαμος 
and ακαινα were convertible terms. But from the position occupied by the κάΚαμος here 
between the δργυιά of 4 πήχeις and the ακαινα of 6|, its size should be not 6§ but 
something between 4 and 6§ cubits. A μίτρον του κάλαμου which differs apparently from 
the ordinary κάλαμος occurs in a passage quoted by Hultsch, op. cit. p. 153, but the 
language seems to be corrupt, and if Hultsch is right in inferring from it a κάλαμος 
of i^ cubits in length, that cannot be the κάλαμος meant here. There is more reason 
to connect the κάλαμος of the papyrus with the κάλαμος of 27^^ παλαισταί mentioned by 
Pediasmus, a Byzantine writer of the fourteenth century (Hultsch, op. cit. i. p. 58 and ii. p. 147)• 
This κάλαμος would Contain 4f cubits of 6 παλαισταί, and 4f would satisfy the conditions 
which, as we have said, the number found in 1. 40 would be expected to fulfil. Assuming 
that this is correct, the κάλαμος of 4f cubits is much older than has been supposed ; 
but there is no particular objection to this, for the information provided by ancient 
metrologists is extremely defective. 

41-2. After the ακαινα, which has the customary 6f cubits, came no doubt a higher 
unit of measurement, very likely the άμμα (40 cubits), which follows the ακαινα in 1. 29. 
01 (ίσι πήχεις may be corrupt for ol (a figure) πήχης, followed by another unit of measurement 
omitted. But it is more likely to be something like τοΐ]|ΐοι ftVt πήχεις (cf. 654. i), 'so 
much for cubits.' 

43-5. The meaning is that the δάκτυλος being the smallest measure of length 
with a name, all other measures of length are referred to it as the unit ; cf. Tabulae 
Heronianae I and Η ελάχιστον be τούτων εστ\ δάκτυλος κα\ πάντα τα ίλάττονα μόρια καλείται, 

and III δάκτυλος πρωτός εστίν ωσπερ και μονάς. Line 43 ^^ probably to be restored 

κατ^αμετρείται τα τοΰ^του, with [/cat ω in 1. 44 ^ ^^• ^' ^'* 

670-678. Poetical Fragments. 

These nine miscellaneous pieces in verse do not appear to be extant, but are 
too fragmentary to call for detailed treatment. 

670 is a strip from a short column of hexameters, w^ritten in a small sloping 
uncial hand of the third century. The metre proves that the part preserved is 
near the beginnings of the lines, but the remains are too scanty to shov^^ the 
subject or the quality of the poem. There is a mention of Dionysus in 1. 22, 


and apparently a reference to Hephaestus in 1. ii. Some corrections have been 
made by a second hand, which also inserted the diaeresis in 1. 26. 

671 is from a series of epideictic epigrams, as is made clear by the heading 
in 1. I Tiras an iXitoi [λόγον; . . . , a formula frequent in the Anthology (cf. e. g. 
A nth. Pal. ix. 126, 449, &c.). Opposite 1. 3, where the epigram commences, is 
the abbreviation vl{ ) — or lv{ ) — which may give the name of the poet, e. g. 
Nicarchus, or of the speaker. The handwriting is an irregular uncial, dating 
probably from the latter half of the third century. 

672. A small fragment from the bottom of a column, containing the latter 
parts of nine lines, written in a rather irregular uncial hand of, probably, the 
first century. Lines 4-8 may be hexameters, but the metre of 1. 9 seems to be 
different. There is no clue to the subject. 

673 contains parts of eleven lines from the top of a column, written in well- 
formed sloping uncials of the common oval type, and dating most probably 
from the third century. In the margin at the top are the beginnings of three 
blurred lines of cursive, apparently mere scribblings ; the writer was perhaps the 
person responsible for some corrections and accents in the text below. This 
seems to be of a lyrical character, though the majority of the verses might 
also be hexameters. 

674. written in careful round uncials of about the latter part of the first or 
the beginning of the second century, is a fragment of a lyric poem, which may 
be by Pindar. The form tapos (1. 6) is indeed not found in the traditional 
Pindaric dialect, but it has a parallel in σκια/^ο? {01. iii. 14, 18). The high stops 
and the accents which have been occasionally added may be by the original 
scribe, but there is a question of a second hand in 11. i and 7 ; cf note ad loc. 

675. The upper parts of two columns of a lyrical poem written in rather 
short lines, and evidently to be classed as a paean (cf 11. i and 12). The mention 
of Alexandria in 1. 4 is an indication of a comparatively late date, but Blass 
thinks that the piece may be by Callimachus, who is known to have composed 
^k\y] of this description. The paragraphus below 1. 2 may mark the commence- 
ment of a fresh strophe, but no metrical correspondence can be followed out 
between the two columns. The MS. is in a large uncial hand of an early type, 
and seems to date from about the middle of the first century. 

676. This small fragment contains the ends and beginnings of lines from 
two columns of a tragedy, written in a sloping uncial hand of the third century. 
High stops occur at 11. 2, 6 and 7, and a middle stop apparently at 1. 3. The 
correction in 1. 9 and the rough breathing in 1. 14 are no doubt original, and the 
accents may be so ; but the addition of the iota adscript in 1. 15 seems to be 



677 and 678 are fragments of comedies. 677, containing the latter parts of 
nine lines from the bottom of a column, is written in neat round uncials which 
may be assigned to the latter part of the first century. 678, from the top of 
a column, is in an upright and rather heavy calligraphic hand similar to 661, and 
probably, like that papyrus, of the latter part of the second century. The 
accents seem to have been added later. 

670. 156x3 7 (^"^ 

jXeiS TL 8 av aWo π . [ 
y $€ και avTOS αγ[ ι 

].[..] αυτόματο? Xltt^v [ 
]ω5 [. .]καζονσιν act γ€[ 
5 ]λ€ Ταρταριησιν αλυκτ[οτΓ€8ησί ? 

]e ψιλή Xov(Tei€U €πιζω[ 
ΤΓαν]τοθ€ν [αμίφιβξβηκζ τ[ 
coy α]/) €φη [. . . .]νης μ€μγ[ 
]ν αστυ[φΐλι]κτον €ωσ[ 


]γαδίλ[. . . .] T€K€f νί[ 
Τ€)(}νη€ΐ9 [και] χωλός €ων . [ 
]? ηροΐσθί τΓ^οΒων aya&i 
'\μζνω[. . .]τζ^σκοτ^ . [ 


]ι;//ί/[. . . .W σε reoy . [ 
[5 ]ο και [. . .\ουσα φι\ο[ 

\σι χωομ€[ν . .] . και μ . [ 
V αρ €ΐσωμ€σθα σιδηρ[ 


] γαρ τταραιασι reois . [ 
] ημ€Τ€ροι ΊΓ . . ντοφ{ 
2 ο ]ν ey'xoy . . εσχε τα[ 

]ην Χ8ζ . [. .] και παλ[ 
] και Διόνυσος e . [ 
Υμοί μη δηρίν cyft[p 
\ν ϋφ ημ€Τ€ροις π€[ 

25 ]ασθαι γΧυκΐρων €7γ[ 
Jfcoy παϊς ούτος €μο[ 

6. υ of \ουσ is corrected apparently by the second hand from t. 

18. The mistake corrected was the common one of writing m for c; the same thing 
has happened in 1. 25. 


Fr. (a) 9-6 χ 7-3, Fr. (3) 15-5 χ 8•ι cm. 

Tivas av einoi [λογούς 
τον υ[ι]ον του -Je[ 
/p ατρ€Κζς αιγλη€σσα[ 
κ[. . . .Vei βασιλΐυς [ 
5 α[. . . .]ασ8υσιασπ[ 
[ ] . ΐκλίΐτηγ [ 

[ yn ^iv(^i[ 



.] . y και νυν €[ 


] . βασιλ[ 

σκη]πτρον €\€ΐ . [ 
χρυσ-ζον αθρησαγί 
αλλ[α] κλυοις €μος οσ[ 


• [• • • •]ΤΊ''^^ °'^'- Τ '{ '^"* KOVp[o]L<i . [ 

[ ^i . τον π€/3€[ ονπω πορψνρξης ττ[ 

ΙΟ [.]υ . [.] θ^στησιον e . [ 20 ονπω σκηπτρ[ 

[ ]^νησζτζκ[ 8ηθνν€ΐ9 βασιλ^υ κ[ 

ιμζίρω σ€0 παι8α μα[ 

1-2. Α name, possibly Nt( ) (cf. introd.), is to be supplied after λογούς. Δο[ may 
be read in place of Δ6[ in 1. 2. This may be the top of the column. 

14. There is a break in the papyrus at this point, and four or five lines at least 
are lost. 


8 X 5-5 ^^• 


IOX4-7 cm. 

]pov δο[ 
]ψαι Xri[ 

]ισιν ^τίμησαν [ 
5 ]ί Νηρηιδβς 
]που ^δίδαγβη 
]σ€ίί ταφον αΐ'Τ/ασ€[ 
]ί/• θηρ όσον (^€8iSa^e[ 
^ΰν δι\α €19 πολνποικίΧ[ 

]ίδων θ€ρα[ 
]μ€να γΧνκ[ 
] . ιπποβοτο[ 
5 ]νομοί9 ολυ . [ 
]ντο5 νποπ[ 
]ρ αϊονων e[ 
π]λοκαμοί9 Oeais [ 
10 ]ei'[[5]]aj'io/coi;/)[ 

672. 9• The high point is really over the ν and is possibly to be connected with 
the point between ν and θ in the line before. The double point usually indicates a change 
of speaker, but is also found as a mark of punctuation, e. g. in 657. 

673. 1-2. Perhaps τΐΐ(ρ]ώων θ(ρα[πων and οβρι]μοπατρα, as Blass suggests. 

4. The letter before ιπποβοτο[ has been corrected. 

5. The mutilated letter before the lacuna might be e. g. μ or i' ; ? θλνμ[πον. 

g. π]λοκαμοις is no doubt part of a compound adjective like (Ιπλόκαμο! or κα\\ιιτ\όκαμης. 

ΙΟ. The doubtful ν has been converted from to by a second hand, which also crossed 
out the 8. 




5-1x5.2 cm. 

]ωΐ'6ΐ'ω[. ..]..[ 

]ivoi Ae\(f)OL va^ 

5 ]e Παρνασσού θ€μ€[θλα 

]ois τ^ρφθΐν lapoLS [ 

]άματ ayXaoLS' ιδίοις [ 

]ιναπο\\ω[. .] . [ 

jay τοι δ αντ[ 

ΙΟ ]ορφ[. . .]κ[ 


Ι. The letters of this first line are smaller than those in the lines below and differently 
formed, and they might be by another hand ; but there is no trace of an erasure, nor can 
the words be an interlinear addition. 

4. t€ or i<r might be read in place of α between ν and δ. 

5• θίμ([θλα: cf. Pindar, Pyih. iv. 180 Παγγαίου θ(μ{βλοις. Perhaps τρίμε Sje k.tX, 

as Blass suggests. 

7. The letters of tbiois are smaller than usual and have a slight slope, while elsewhere 
the hand is upright ; they seem to have been written by the original scribe, but may 
be a marginal note or gloss. 

8. Something like an ο enclosed between two dots (cf. e.g. 16. ii. 4) has been 
written above the letter after πολλ, which is probably ω. The words may be divided ]ινα 
ΤΓολλ ... or ]«!/ ΑτΓολλ . . . 


Col. i. 

TraiavL φιλοστ€φα[νω] 
μ€λιι[ον]τ€ς ω[ ] 

lepau κ[<χ]τ€χων [ ] 

Αλ€ξαν[δρ]€ΐαν . [ ] 

5 πάλιν [. . .] και βα[ ] 

ιι•8 χ ΐ4•5 ^^'• 

Col. ii 

Κ€[. . .] μ€\ψο[. . 
κ^λαδον παιαν[. . 
μξλίσι στζψα[. . 
€υΐ€ρων 7Γ€λα[νων 
15 θνμα δ€δωκατ[€ . 


ομού π[. .]ω/ί€ΐ/[ ] σταίί iv ω5α[ί]9 [. . 

ται^ Se . [ πολυώνυμοι ίλ[. . . . 

σποι/8α[ [ ](rai/ Se φ[. 

8οίσυμ . [ [ ]ουτον[. . . 

ΙΟ σ€βία[ .... 

Ι. τταιανι: the vestiges of the last two letters are very slight, but ι is much more 
probable than a. 

2. There is a short blank space between μΐλπ[ορ]τ€ς and the letter following. 

3. κ[a]Γeχωv is Very uncertain ; the letter after ν could be almost anything. π[ο]τ (χων 
is quite possible. 

9. Probably -Sois υ/^»{. 


Col. i. 

5 X 7-4 cm. 

Col. ii. 


5 ] 


[[ο]]ι; μίν τα[ 

ΙΟ yKiVTpoiS [ 
e/c της 7γ[ 
oy νιν π[ 
σπασας ιτ[ 


ζγθρω πα[ 
σφάλος δ[ 
τταλαι Τ€τ\ 

Ι. ]«!», if right, no doubt ended the line, but there \^Όuld be room for two 
letters more. 

8. There is a blank space before μ(ί{, which is possibly the name of the speaker, 
e. g. Mej{iXaos. Apparently there was also a slight space between this and the preceding 

16. σφάΚοί is a word of the use of which there is no other example. The root 

is that of σφάΚΚΐσθαι and ασφαλής. 




8-6 X 39 cm. 


11x4 cm. 

] . σε . [ ] τα\ζ 

]γ£ λύπησαν τΐ';(ω[ 
]τα ττζίθαργουντα [ 
5 ] τρόπον προσιο[ντ 
] TLVL λαλείί [ 
]ίαι/ Νουμηνί€ [ 
]€pos' €ΐν€γμαί μ[ 
μα t]ovs δω$€κα ee[ovs 

eau Κ€λξυη[ 
ουκ ίστιν [ 
σου : κακόν [ 


ώ ΤΓροστατ\^ 
αραν 8υνα[ 




677. 6. There is a blank space in the papyrus on either side of nw XoKtis. Probably 
two feet are to be supplied at the end of the line. 

8. (ΐνίγμαι is apparently for €ρηι>ίγμαι or ηίνιγμαι. The doubtful y might be t, but 
that gives no word. 

9. Cf. 409. 86, «fee. 

678. 1-7. It appears on the whole probable that the fragment preserves the 
beginnings of the lines and that there is no loss on the left side till 1. 7, which must 
have projected somewhat, owing to the column having, as often happens, a slight slope. 
But this is not at all certain, and what we have taken to be a paragraphus between 11. 4-5 
may be a rough breathing over ω. 

8. The syllable preceding τη had an acute accent. 

679-684. Prose Fragments. 

The following group of unidentified prose fragments corresponds to the 
foregoing collection of minor poetical pieces. The first, 679, is historical, and 
consists of the upper parts of two columns, both unfortunately fragmentary, 
written in neat upright uncials of the first century B. c. Military operations are 
being described, and there is a mention in II. 2,-4 of some one dispatched by an 
Alexander in Cilicia, and of a king or kingdom in 1. 42. Perhaps, then, this is 
a fragment from a history of the campaigns of Alexander the Great, and it may 
even belong to the lost work on that subject by the first Ptolemy. 


680 seems also to come from some historical work, but its sense is not 
easy to follow. Parts of 15 lines from the top of a column are preserved, con- 
taining mentions of Cilicians, Attica and the Athenians, and Soli in Cyprus. 
The hand is a sloping uncial of the middle or latter part of the third century. 
A low stop apparently occurs in 1. 3. 

681 is a piece from the top of a column containing the latter parts of 
15 lines from a geographical or historical treatise. A description of some 
Thracian tribes, among which are the Triballi and Paeonians, is given, but the 
passage is too mutilated for satisfactory restoration. The fragment is written in 
rather irregular, but not ill-formed, uncials, which may date from the second 
century ; a high stop is used. 

682. Two fragments, both probably from the same column, of which one 
of them forms the top. The graceful upright hand seems, like that of 699, to be 
a rather early example of the oval type, and it may go back to the latter part 
of the second or the beginning of the third century. The common angular sign 
is used for filling up a short line (1. 12). The pieces are part of an oration, 
perhaps a lost speech of Hyperides. 

683 contains the ends of lines of part of a column, with some traces of the 
column following, r[ and r[, opposite 11. 16 and 19, being all that is legible. 
The fragment is not easy to classify ; citations of previous writers are made in 
11. 4 and 12-3, and a Dionysius is mentioned in 1. 9. The piece is written in small round uncials, which may be assigned to the latter half of the 
second century. An angular sign is used at the end of short lines. On the 
verso are parts of two lines in cursive of about the time of Septimius Severus. 

684, containing 23 nearly complete lines from the bottom of a column, is 
much more intelligible. The fragment comes from some ethical treatise, the 
comparatively late date of which is indicated by the occurrence of the form 
ττροσζλξνσομαι (11. 6 and 22) as \vell as by the subject, the characteristics of 
sovereigns and advice for intercourse with them. The piece is written on the 
verso of the papyrus — the recto being blank — in sloping oval uncials, probably 
of the middle or latter half of the third century. 

679. 12-5 X 6-1 cm. 

Col. i. Col. ii. 

]ων Ελληνικών re 

.]v τον ey Κιλικι r 

ai α7Γ€στ]αλμ€νον υπ Αλ€ 



ξανδρον vajrepov .[•]•. ay 
5 ] . του παραδοθτ}ναι 

]riv €πίμ(λ€ΐαν 

] , as άλλα τω μτ{ βλ 

] την ησυγιαν € . [. 

.... λα'^βανοντ^ί μη «ο- 
ίο ]tovs τωγ καθιστώ 

των . . . ,]ν δζ 8ιαμ€ρισθω 

σίν ]ου στρατοπ€ 

δο ] . των μβρί 

15 letters ]νται 

15 Jri*'? δζσιν 

] δο^αντων 

]αν αποστίΐ 

λ ] νπηρζτα? e[i]y 

]τ]ν των προ 

2θ ι]7Γπ€ων α[.]€κα 

ΙΟ letters Ιττψο •[.••] 


25 [ 


30 [ 


35 ου 


σ . 

α . . [.]α 
4θ διο[ 

€19 ην κ[ 

45 ο .[ 

38-45. These lines are written smaller and closer together than the rest. 


6-5 X 4 cm. 

[. . . .]ων Κιλικων [ 
[. .]λ•ρστο ot δ€ ολ[ 
[. .]α. μ€γα τι . . [ 

[€]ξ€λθ€ΐν φ[ 

5 Αττικής /ί€τ[ 
Toi/y Αθηναι[ο]υ9 [ 
7Γ αυτού TcOeiaty [ 
τουί αναστρζψηΐ 

δ€ €19 5Όλουί του[ 
ΙΟ Ρ€9 του9 €v Κυιτ[ρω 
[.]α,ι του9 δ€ €ζο[ 
[.]ω υποστρίψαι [ 
.] . α? €πιτ€τριμ[ 
.]€Κτον υτΓΟ των [ 
15 [ ]λω απ•[ 



3, Ti is very doubtful ; the vestiges representing τ might be taken for a double point. 
14. Or υπσ/ω. 


II X γ•ι cm. 

]iy αντα /3ία[. ...]... 

] . ΤΟΙΚ .[.]•. [.]?• 7Γ0Τ[. . .] . 

]κρουσνμ . . το . τ[. .] 
] και κρατηθζν\τω\ν των 
Τριβαλ]λωι/ ο[ι] μζγ α[λ]λθί κατά 

]γΤ€? uXoV Τ€ S[. .]ζΙ 



] γ€γονασι tois α . . α . ι 
] πλαστοί τ[ω]ν προσιτά 
]ντων Τριβα\\[ω\ν και 
] ττροτΐρον μ^ν . . τ 
] μονην την npos τον 
κ]αθηκονσαν• νυν Se 
τ]ων Παίονων των α 
] καλουμένων• και 

6. If Τριβαλ]λωι/ is right not more than six letters are missing at the beginnings 
of 11. 1-9 or from seven to eight in the remainder. 

8. The letter between a and ι is very likely σ. Above the ο of rotf is a spot of ink 
which seems to be accidental. 


Fr. (a) 8 χ 2-8, Fr. {b) 5-1 X 4-7 cm. 

Fr. {a) [τ]αι^ δημοκρ[ατιαΐ9 οι 
νομοί 7Γαντ[(ον (ίσι των 
[€]ν τηι ΤΓολ^ι κύριοι και 

[ν]μων €κασ[τ 

δ μονί ττ€ . [.] . [ 

[.]? ovSe[ 12 letters 

Fr.(^) .... 
7 [ 12 letters ] δτ}μ[. 

[ €ΐσ]αγγ€λια[ 

[ 12 letters ^γιγ^^Ι 
[ ΙΟ ,, ] τούτων [ 
αυτός νομον θησ€ΐν 
και Ίταυσΐΐν του? €v 
TOis Βικαστηριοις ρ[αι 
διως αΐΓθφ€υγον[τα9 

15 [.] Se δημο[ ω 

[a\v8p€S Α[θηναιοι 

Ι. [rjoic was probably preceded by tv. Mr. Smyly aptly quotes Hyperides, Euxenip. 

XXI. (V δημοκρατία κυρωι o< νόμοι (σονται «cal al ίΙσαγγΐΧίαι και al αΧλαι Kptaeis κατά rovs νόμους 
ίϊσίασιν fit τυ δικαστηριορ. 

8-ΙΟ. Nothing need be missing at the end of these lines. 

15. [o] dt δημα[ς Or Λημο[σβ(νη! or [η] of 1>ημο[κρατια are possible Supplements. 




9-3 X 4-4 cm. 

^φαση9 αν 

5 ] "Kokamuus 
}ra<ray «r τα 
l^avuM, Siawpa 
JBuru^ oi ra we 
jres Δωνυσι 
ΙΟ ]«Ae . ησβα^ 

15. onrar maj be a complete word; c£ L 18 

]e? €r Tiyi 
mjr toropunr 
]ro ^ rovf 
15 ]affaror λα 
)rra vpeofieu 

]|ΓΕΤ ο JCM 

]α Ke/)fa & 
]rr«y ico/u 
20 jeowr oo- 




. . .]rt9oa-€is ο . >{.]|(fa[. 

. . .]r €ργα>ν evos eurir .[ 

. . .jffwr βονλοτταί νραγμβηΐ. 

. .^f ρ €χ€ΐ Se Ttpa και atf. . . . 

€^ργ€στ€ρα{ψ] y τρονο . . \tl ie 
χρη] /ιαλ[λ]οτ veuSeveir Tm{s] vpa^afXev 
ao]/upous fiaaiXei η τον a^mjJ[arof 
τα] ^iaj^opa τι ifer ταράσσει [... . 
. .] . βσυσιναυ τι ^e] αττηται [τι Se 
. .]τί; o'^ei w»(.] .w τι 9^ Tji of. . . . 
€a\rt» erepcuf Td[CjavTart or ...[... . 
Bii] yiYVi<^e\au wpo9 τον? fiaaiXfa^t και 

/ια]λα €uun[aij^ ?f i^ f^ Ύ^ ^?[' • • • 
. . .javparmy θαΧασσοΜτ ...[.... 

15 . .] . τον και wpo9 [o]v^ Se out» [. . . . 
. e]c και Kvpuurei και αναζ^ι ο»; 
$v]ji09 ^ao[(JXetf[9] arc γαρ peyas α{ν και 
avyoKparmp χ[α]ι waXrj τη ^ζον[σια 
Xp}»pcros οξνί eoTip και ακατα[σ\€ 

2θ ΤΟ?] και frpos re ray reipa? vpo^eipos 
νρο'β τ€ Tas KoXaaeis oJceiAvrof [χρη 
ovr] Tor wpoafXsvaoperctf rm τό[ιω 
Se KJfu τηλικωδ€ ^^ρ}ησ&αι βία^ [ 

5. c^pycoT^r]: the final ν scaicelj fiOs the airaDable space, and another letter 
may be losL 

6. The second λ of |Μ^λ]ι» if written would be veiy ciamped and maj have been 

9. The traces of the sopposed ο after ] . β are rather doser than thej should be 

Κ 2 


both to the β and to the following ν and perhaps do not represent a letter, and on the 
other hand a narrow letter may be lost between the doubtful σ and t. /3υσ[σ]ίνου . . . 
ίυνητον might be read, but would make no sense here. Perhaps there is some corruption. 

14. κυμάτων would be expected and should no doubt be restored (cf. 1. 16 κυμαίνε); 
perhaps καυμάτων was written by mistake. 

18. τταΧη'. 1. πάλαι or πολλ^ ? There is room for a letter between π and a, but 
the α seems clear. 

23. The final ν of μev is rather spread out and was possibly the last letter of 
the line. 



685. Homer, Iliad XVII. 

12-5 X IO-5 cm. 

This fragment, containing the ends of 11. 725-32 of the Iliad, from the top 
of a column, is of interest owing to the presence of some marginal scholia, one 
of which, that on 1. 728 mentioning a reading of the Koiy^, is with little doubt 
by the original scribe, while those below were added subsequently in cursive. 
The MS. was a fine specimen of Greek calligraphy, being written with great 
care in a large, round uncial hand, very similar to that of ββΐ (Plate v). It 
is probably to be assigned, like ββΐ, to the latter half of the second century, 
a date to which the cursive adscripts opposite 11. 730-1 also point. High and 
middle stops (11. 728-9) occur, and accents and breathings are used in the first 
scholium. There is a broad margin at the top of the column. 

725 eJTTi καπρωι 

7Γ€7ΓΟίσ]ωΓ• η κ αλλ* art ^η ρ 

] aWoS' 


730 €7Γθ]ί/ΤΟ 


μΐρωγ [. 

]λ9€1 OVTt [ 

728. The marginal note evidently refers to the Aristarchean method of writing ore 817, 
namely orebj}, and implies that the word had the Aristarchean accent in the text. Cf. 

Schol. A on A 493 Άρίσταρχο! 6τ(8η ως 8ηλα8ή παραλόγως ανΐ-γίνωσκΐ, and the disCUSSion of the 

question in the scholia of Ammonius, 221. i. i-8, where the ordinary accentuation is 
upheld. For the reference to the Koti^ cf. 445. 

731. The scholium appears to be an explanation of the word αμφιγνοισιν which it 
interprets in the sense of 'pointed at both ends'; cf. Apollonius' Lexicon, s.v. rots f$ 

fKarepov μέρους γνωσαι bvvaptvovs. After μ^ρων Something like άκρον ίχονσιν must be Supplied , 
cf. Schol. A on ν 147 οί Se μΐταφορικώ: άπο των γυΐων, δτι ίκατίρωθΐν άκρον ?χ€ί. The note 

may have been continued in a third shorter line, and there is a faint mark below the ν of 
μ^ρων which (if it be ink) would suit an e. 

732. The marginal note below this Hne, which should refer to 1. 733 σταίησαν των 8e 
τράιτ€το χρως, ov8e τις €τλη, is obscure. The Only word here of which an explanation seems 
at all likely to have been given is τράτητο, which in the Schol. Didymi is glossed ήλλάσσίτο 
ή Idf'a τοΰ προσώπου ; but the present note was phrased dififerently. The doubtful λ may be 
μ and four or five letters may be lost in front of it since 1. 733 is not a long one. Auan- . [ 
cannot be read. 

686-688. Homer, //tad //, ///, and XL 

The three following Homeric fragments of which the text is printed below 
are reproduced in facsimile on Plate vii, and have a palaeographical value as 
practically contemporary specimens of the literary hand of the early Augustan 
period. 686 and 688, from the bottom and top of a column respectively, are 
very similar in type, 686 being the more regular and ornamental of the two, 
and both have a decided resemblance to the hand of the new Pindar fragments 
(659), which is perhaps slightly older. 687, which is also of some interest 
on account of the presence of two critical signs in the margin of Col. ii, shows 
a stiffer and more angular style of writing. No stops or other lection signs 
occur in any of the three pieces. We give a collation with Ludwich's text. 

686. 7•3Χ5•ΐί:/«. Plate VII. 

ii, 50 [αυταρ ο κηρν]κζσσι λι[γνφθογγοισί 



[κηρνσσ^ιν αγ^ορην 8e κα[ρηκομοωρτας 
[οι μζν €κηρν]σσον τοί δ η[γ€ΐροντο 
[βονληρ 8e πρ]ωτον μ€γαθνμ[ων 
[Νεστορξη παρ]α νηι ΙΙυ\οι-/ζν\ζθ^ 
55 [τους ο ye συνκ\α\ζσας πυκινη[ν 
[κ\ντ€. φίλοι 6]eLos μοι €ννπι/ι[ον 
[αμβροσιην 8i\a νύκτα μάλιστα [ 
[eiSos re /leyje^oy Τ€ φνην τ αγ[^ιστα 

53• The papyrus probably read βονλην, as do the great majority of the MSS. ; but the 
lacuna is too large to give a real clue, βονλη Ludwich, with Aristoph. and Aristarch. 
54. nv\oiyei{eos : SO Lud. with AB, &C. ; Πυληγ. SM, &C. 

56. e]eios : so MSS. and Aristarch. ; ^fto» Zenod. 


Col. i. 

7-9 X 4-5 '^m- 

Col. ii. 

Plate VII. 

iii. 185 αιολοπ]ωλον9 




> TOv[s δ eγω 
αλλ o[t€ 

> αμ<ρ[ω 
αλλ ο[τ€ 

ουδ α[φαμαρτοξπη9 
αλλ οτ[€ 



207• There is a diple against this line in Ven. A with the note or» παραλλήλως ίξύνισα 
κα\ (φίλησα' το yap φιλΰν iviore αντί του ζ(νίζ(ΐν τίθησιν. 

211. Ven. Α has a diple periestigmene opposite this line. 


8•ιχ 45 cm. 

Plate VII. 

01 δ €Ti καμ μξσο[ν 
as re Xecoi/ ίφο[βησ€ 

[α^ζν α7Γ0ΚΤ€ΐν[ων 
πολλοί δζ 7Γρη[νζΐ9 


πάσας τη Se τ ιη αρ[αφαιν€ται [Ατ]ρΐίδ€ω υπο [ 1 8ο 

xi. 175 τ"Ί^ ^ ^i ff'^X'^v ea|[e [αλλ] ore δη τα[χ 

πρώτοι/ €π€ίτα δ[€ [ιξ€]σθαί τοτ€ [δη 

0)9 T0V9 Ατρ€ίδ[η9 [Ιδη]^ €V [κορνψηΐσΐ 

179-80. These two lines were athetized by Aristarchus and omitted by Zenodotus; 
Ludwich prints them in small type. 

689. Hesiod, Scutum. 

Fr. {a) 9-2 X3-6 cm. 

Three fragments from the top of a column, containing the concluding 
fifteen lines of the Scutum of Hesiod. The text is written in round, rather heavy 
uncials of medium size, which appear to date from about the end of the second 
century. The occasional accents, &c., and the punctuation are probably due 
to the original scribe, as well as the corrections in 11. 475 and 480. In the 
collation we have made use of the edition of Rzach (1902) ; a couple of other- 
wise unrecorded variants occur. 

\ιππονς μαστι^την ικοντο 5je μακ>^ον ΟΧνμπον 
\vios δ Α\κμην\η<$ και κν[δα]λιμο9 IoX[aos 
[Κνκνον σκνλξ]νσαν[τ]€[ς α]π ωμών [revj^ea κα\α 
[νισοντ aiy^ra] δ ^πατα π[ο\ι,]ν Τρηγ^ι.[νοί l\kovto 
470 [ίπτΓΟί? ωκνπό\δ€σσίν' ατα[ρ y]λαt'/cω7Γ[ίy] Αθηνη 
[e^iAcer Ου\υ]μπον τ€ μίγ[α]ν και δωμ[α]τα πατρός- 
[Ενκνον δ αν Κ]ηνξ θαπτ€ν [κ]αι λαός α[π€ΐ]ρων 
[οι ρ tyyvs ναιο^ν πολιάς κλ€[ι]τον βασιλ[η]ο9 
[Ανθην Μυρμι^δονων τ€ πο[λί]ΐ' κλ€ΐτη[ρ] τ Ιαωλκον 


475 [Αρνην τ ηδ Ελ]ικην• πολλο? [δ €]πΐ{ι\γ€ρ[€το λα]ος 
[τιμωντ€ς Κηνκ]α ψιλον μ[α]καρ€[σσι θ€θΐσι]ν 
[τον δξ ταφον και σ\ημ αιδζ[ς ποίησαν Αναν]ρος 
[ομβρωι χ€ΐμ€ρι]ωι πληθών [τως γαρ μιν ^7Γ]ολλωί' 


[ΛητοίΒη^ ηνού^ o\tl pa κλΗ\τα^ ζκατομβα]? 

48ο [oy Tis αγοί Πυθοιδΐ] βιη σϋλ[ασκ€ δοκάνων 

466. μακΚ[ον is for μακρόν, a case of the common confusion of λ and p. 

473. πόλιαί: πόλιοί Rzach with E, πόλι^αί Other MSS. ; the papyrus reading will at 
least scan. 

474-5. Rzach follows Goetthng in regarding these two lines as a later addition. The 
papyrus shows that they belong to an ancient tradition. €]rreyfip[fTo in 1. 475 is a new 

variant ; ηγ(ίρ(το, iytipero or ηγ^ίρατο MSS. 

480. βίτ] σνΚασκί is the ordinary reading. The scribe seems to have imagined that the 
verb was υλασκ€ ; what he supposed the σ meant or why he made a mark like a sign of 
elision after the overwritten t we are unable to conjecture. There is a break in the papyrus 
immediately below this line ; the title of the book presumably followed as usual. 

690, 691. Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica III. 

690 13x5-2 iTOT., 691 3-3 X 3-3^^• 

We here group together a couple of fragments from the third book of the 
ArgonauHca o( Apollonius Rhodius, but derived from two distinct MSS. The 
larger fragment, 690, v\^hich is from the bottom of a column and comprises 
11. 737-45, is in a third century semi-uncial hand. A variety of lection signs 
occur, of v^'hich the marks of elision are certainly due to the original scribe ; 
the breathings and accents have rather the appearance of being a later addition. 
691, containing parts of 11. 908-14, is earlier in date, being written in rather 
heavy, but not very regular, round uncials, which may be attributed to the 
second century. The texts are remarkable for the confirmation of two con- 
jectures, Porson's ναντίλοί for vuvtul appearing in 1. 745, and Stephanus' 
correction of μετά for κατά in 1. 909. Our references to the two chief codices, 
the Laurentianus and the Guelferbytanus, are taken from the edition of 
R. Merkel (1854). 


[Χαλκιοπη ω?] νμ[μι 
[ωί €ρ|ω μη γ]αρ μ[οι 


[770)9 μηΒ^ /ie] 8ηρ[ον βθΐ. 

73© [€ί €Τί ση^ ψν]χη9 π[ροφ€ρ€στ€ροι/ 

[σων θ]€ΐην [ο]ι δη μοι •[ 

[κη]δ€μον€9 re φίλοι κα[ι 

[φη]μί κασίγνητην re [ 910 

[ίσον] €π€ί KUVOLS μΐ τ[€ω 
735 [νη]7Γντίην' ώί aiev [ 

[αλλ] i'^i KcvOe δ* €/ίί7[ί' 

[λί7σο]/ίαί €ντννονσ[α 
738 [οί<7•]ο/;ΐαί 6/9 Εκάτης θ[ΐλκτηρια 
74© [ωί] ί? y' €/f θαλαμοιο [ 

[αν]τοκασίγνητη9 [ 

[αίδ]ω9 τ€ στνγίρον [re 

[τοια] Ίταρ^ξ ου ΤΓατρ[θ9 

[νυξ] μ€ν €π€ΐτ €π[ι γαιαν 
745 [ν<ιν]τι\θί eiy ^ΕΧίκην [ 

δασο]μ€σΘα μ[€τα 
τ]ωί δ αντ€ κακ[ωτ€ρον 
α^τΓονοσφι 7Γ[€λ€σ^6 
ιτασηι]σί δ ζτηκΧ[οιτος 
Αισονι.]δ[η\ν [ 

690. 73°• " «Ι"' • the papyrus probably had the ordinary reading, which would quite 
fill the lacuna ; « ye η Merkel, et «e τι Wellauer. 

733. κασιγιητην: SO L; 1. κασιγρητη with G, Merkel. 

735• ^s: so L {&ή: as G, Merkel. 

738. The papyrus agrees with the other MSS. in omitting the line (739) cited in the 

scholia of L οίσομίνη ξύνω inep ov robe vt'iKos ορωρ€, with (ίσομαι for οίσομαι in 1. 738. 

745. [ναν]τ[λοι : ραΰται MSS., ναυτίλοι Porson, which restores the metre and is adopted 
by Merkel. ναΰται should disappear from future editions. 

691. 909. μ[(τα: so Stephanus, a correction which has generally been accepted in 
place of the MSS. reading κατά. 

692. Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica IV. 

1 1-5 X 8-7 cm. 

Two fragments from the bottom of a column, containing parts of 11. 77-90 
of Apollonius Rhodius' Argonautica, Book iv. The handwriting, a neat upright 
uncial, has a certain resemblance to that of the Thucydides papyrus (16, 696), 
and is apparently a rather later specimen of the same type ; we should assign 
it to the second century. Occasional accents and stops (high usually, but 


a middle point apparently occurs in 1. 89) are used, and may be due, like the 
insertion of an iota adscript in 1. 90, to the original scribe. 

[77/οω€ί μ^]τα [τηνγ€ 6ools (Χαασκον (ρξτμοΐί 

[ονττω 7Γζ]ισματα νηο^ ^[π ηπ€ΐροιο πβραιη? 

[βαλλον ο] Se KpaiTTVovs [γ^ίρσω πο5α? ηκίν Ιησων 
8ο [ν\ι^ου €7Γ ικρωφιν μ€τα [Se Φροντι^ re και Αργο9 

[vt]€ δνω Φριξ[ον] γ^αμαδ[ί9 θορον η 8 αρα rovay^. 

\yov\v(i!>v [αμ(ρο]τ€ρηί[σί π]ίρισγο[μζνη προσ^ειπ^ν 

[ίκ] μί φ[ίλοι ρνσασθΐ δνσα]μμορον' ω? [Se και avTOVS 

[f/zejay Αί[ηταο προ yap τ α\ναφανΒα [πτυκται 
85 [π\αντα μαλ ονδζ τ[ι μνχ]θ9 ικαν€τ[αι αλλ ezri νηι 

[φ€]νγωμξν πριν τον γ[€] Qocav €πίβ[ημξναι ίππων 

[δω]σω Se y^pvaeiov €γω iepoy ζυνη[σασ(ΐ 

[φρό\υρον οφιν τννη Se Oeovs [€v]i aotcr[iv €ταιροΐ9 

[^€ΐ]퀕 τ€ων μύθων €πί[ί]στο[ραί] ου[^ μοι νπΐστηΐ 


ρο [ποι]ησαί• μηδ ύνθίν €κ[αστ€ρ]ω ορμ[ηθξΐσαν 

8ο, (π: so L ; άπ G, Merkel. 

86. τον γ[ΐ]: T0v8e G (Merkel), τωνδ€ L; the letter before the lacuna is certainly not 8. 

90. The size of the lacuna makes it pretty certain that the papyrus had the right 
reading ίκαστ^ρω ; ίκατΐρω GL, The iota adscript was probably added by the person who 
put in the accents, but whether he is to be identified with the original scribe is doubtful. 

693. Sophocles, Electra. 

8-6 X 3*6 cm. 

A narrow strip from the top of a column, containing 11. 993-1007 of 
Sophocles' Electra. The * MS., which is a good specimen of the oval type 
of uncials, was probably written in the first half of the third century. The 
correction in 1. looa and the occasional lection signs, with the exception of the 
mark of elision in 1. 993, are probably all by the original scribe. A rare variant 
occurs in 1. 995. Our collation is derived from the Jahn-Michaelis edition 
of i88a. 


[ζτνγ-^μν αυτή μη [κακών €σωζίτ αν 
[την €]ν\αβ€ΐαν [ωσπβρ ονχι σωζξταί 
995 [ΐΓοι] γαρ ποτ€ βλ€[ψασα τοιούτον Opaaos 
[αντη 6] οπλιζη κα[μ υττηρ^τ^ιν KaXeis 
[ονκ €]iaopaS' γννη [μ^ν ουδ ανηρ e^vs 
[a6€]veis S έλασσον [των ενάντιων χ^ρι 
[δαίμ]ων Se τοίί μ[€ν ίντνχηί καθ ημ€ραν 
ιοοο [ημι]ν δ απορρα κ[απι μηδξν €ρχ€ται 

[rty ο]νν τοιούτον α[νδρα βουλ€νων eXuv 


[αλν]τΓο ατη9 €ξαπα[λλαχθησ€ται 
[ορα κ]ακω9 πρασ-σο[ντ€ μη μ^ιζω κακά 
[κτησ]ωμ€θ' €ΐ τί? τρ[υσδ ακουσ^ται Xoyovs 
1005 [Xuet y^o-p ημοι^ ο[υδίν ουδ €πωφ€\€ΐ 

[βαξιν] καλην λ[αβοντ€ δυσκλίως Oavuv 
[ου yap 6](£y\€iv [ζγβιστον 

995• •^ο'"* βλβΓ'/'ασ-α: SO the Cod. Monacensis (Herwerden, Anal. Crit. p. 12): ττοτ' 
ί>/3λ€^ασα L, &c. and vulg. 

996. (wrXiC»?: so all the chief MSS. (όπλιΧ»?ι); οτίκίζ,^ editors. 
998. (Κασσον: SO Brunck and vulg.; tkarrov MSS. 
1002. Perhaps αλλ νπο was originally written. 

694. Theocritus, Idyl XIII. 

14-2 χ8•4 cm. 

A small fr agment from the thirteenth Idyl of Theocritus, written in a good- 
sized upright round uncial hand of the second century, probably the earlier 
half of it. Numerous stops (high point), breathings, accents, &c. occur, all of 
which, as well as a few corrections or variants inserted above the line, seem to 
be due to the first hand. The text has a new variant in 1. 34, and an error in 
1. 30, but elsewhere agrees with the MSS. Our collation is with the edition 
of Ziegler. 


*LK€To KQ) ταλαζρ[γο5 
20 Αλκμηνας vi'os [ 


συν ^ α\ν\τ(ύ κατ€β[αιν€ν 

arcs Kvavedv ov[•^ 

άλλα δ[ί]€ξα€Ϊσ€' βα[6νν 

aiiTo[s\ «[sj /χ€γα Χα^ιτμα 
25 aμos 8 αντέλλον\τί 

άρνα viov βοσκο[ντι 

τ[α\μο^ ναντιλί[α^ϊ^^ [ 

ηρώων κο[ιΚ\αν Se [ 

Ελ[λ]άσποντοι/ ϊκο[ντο 

3θ €ΐσω δ ορμον ϊκον[το 

αύλακας ζνρύνοντ\ι 

ίκβαντζζ δ €7Γί θ€Ϊ[να 

[δ€ΐ]€[λ]ίνο[ι]' πολλοί δ[ζ 

[λ€ΐμ]ων [σ]0[ί]ι/ Tra[peK€CTO 

19. κώ : χω MSS. 

20. Αλκμηνα! '. SO most MSS. Αλκμήνης Z(iegler) foUowing the Ambrosianus. 

21. Against this line are two dashes, of which the meaning, if any, is obscure. 
22-4 were rejected by Ahrens. Inl. 23 S[i]e|aetae is corr. to δ[φ^αϊ|ί. 

25• It is not certain what was written above the initial a. The supposed η between 
two points (i.e. ημος for αμος) is possibly an accent and breathing. 

30. ικοι{το : eOevTo MSS., Z. ΐκοντο is a repetition from the previous line. 

34. [σ]φ[ί]ι/ 7ra[pfK€iTu : yap σφιν e/ceiro MSS., Z. 

695. Herodotus V. 

24-3 X 7-6 c?n. 

Part of chapters 104-5 of Herodotus, Book V, written in a good-sized third 
century uncial hand of the broad oval type. Tvio corrections and a breathing 
have been inserted by a second hand. The text offers no variants from that 
of Stein. On the verso, in a late third or early fourth century cursive hand, 
is part of a list of names of persons, with sometimes a statement of the villages 
to which they belonged, e. g. . . . από Θώλ^(ίωί), ^ζναμοΐ>ν{ι$) άττο Ταλαώ, 


[ras Kv]nf}ioy[s συνατη να γ€ν€σθαι τη9 σι{λ\ο 

στασθαι του? μ€ν 8rj [αλ 15 [y?]? ώστε ταντα <rv[vv 
λον? αν€π€ΐσ€ Afiq[6ov φανθηναι τον Μιλ[ησί 

σων? 8€ ον βρν\[ο]μ€[ΐΌνς ον Αριστα[γ]ορην 7τ[ρωτα 

5 ^{ψι πίΐθβσθαι €πολ[ίορ μ[€ν] λ[€]γ€ταί [α]ντον [ω? 

Κ€€ 7Γροσκατημ€ν[ο? €πνθ€τ[ο] ταντα Ιων[ων 

ΟνησιΚο? μζν νυν ^[ιγο 2ο ovSeva λο[γ]ον ηοιη<Γ[α 
λιορκ€€ Αμαθουντ[α μίνον €υ €ΐ8οτα ω[? ου 

βασιλΗ δ€ Ααρζί[ω] ω? ^^-^^ι y^ ^^, κα^τφττροϊξίον 

ΙΟ €[^α]γγ[€]λ[5]77 [^\ap[8]i[s α j^^^j αττοσταντ^ς €φ[€ 

λ[ωσα? €]μ7ΓβτΓ ρησθα[ι [(τθ]α[ι] oiTive? euv οι Α [ 

υπ[ο Τ€] Αθ[η]ναιων [και 35 [θτ]ν]αω[ί μ^τα] 8e [πυθο 

Ι\(ύ\ν(ύν τον 8e ηγ€μ[ο ....... 

22. The second η of κατά has been corrected from ο; i.e. the first hand wrote 

ουκ αποπροιξονται, which waS altered to ov καταττροιξονται. 

23- Final s of αποσταντα was put in (by the first hand) later. 

696. Thucydides IV. 
Fr. (c) 15x19 cm. 

In view of the peculiar excellence of the Oxyrhynchus Thucydides papyrus 
originally published in the Egypt Exploration Fund's Archaeological Report 
for 1896-7, and reprinted as P. Oxy. 16, the discovery of some more frag- 
ments of the same MS. was a welcome surprise. The new pieces comprise 
portions of six more columns, covering, with considerable lacunae, chapters 
a8 to 35 of the fourth book ; and at the same time supply some of the missing 
beginnings of lines in the first column of the fragment originally found, which 
succeeded immediately. 

The present part of the MS. possesses the same features which distinguished 
that published previously, and readers are referred to the description given in 
P. Oxy. I. p. 40. We see no reason for altering the date (first century A. D.) 
there proposed for the papyrus. We are, however, inclined to doubt whether 
the final ν which has been inserted occasionally in the text is after all by a hand 
different from that to which the other numerous corrections and variae lectiones 



are apparently due, and which is not to be distinguished from that of the original 

As before, the papyrus shows a number of small differences from the 
ordinary text, the most noteworthy being those in 11. 4, 13, 16, 38, 6%-^ and 87. 
Our collation is with the text of Hude. 

Fr. {a) 

Col. i. 2.?>. 4. 

Col. ii. 29. 3. 

[Ιμβριον? T0V9 τταροντα? και] πβλ 

αμαρτημ[ατα ωστ€ προσπ€ΐ 

πτίΐν α[ν avrovs απροσδοκη 

5 τ•ώ•ί η βου\[οιντο ^ττ €Κ€ΐ 

V01S γαρ €Lv[ai αν την eTTi^ct 
[ρη]σιν [ 

Ι column lost. 

Fr. (b) Col. ίν. 32. Ι. 

[φύλακας ois €π€δρα]μον €v6vs 
10 [διαφθζίρονσιν €v re] rais evvais (τ[ι 
[αναλαμβανοντ]ας -erl- τα όπλα 
[και λαθοντ€9 τ]ην αποβασιν οι 

Tos vavs 

[ομζνων αντ]ων κατά το €ΐω 

[Θος €9 ζφορμον τη9] νυκτός πλίΐν 

15 [αμα Se €ωι γίγνο]μ€νηι και ο 
[αλλθ9 στρατό?] απφαιν^ν 
[<£Κ μζν νιων €]βδομηκοντα 
[κοι ολιγωί πλζΐ]ονων παν 
[res πλην βαλαμι]ων ω? €κα 

2θ [στοι €σκζνασμ€]νοι τοξοται 
[Se οκτακόσιοι και π€]λτασται 

Fr. {c) Col. V. 3^• 4• 

)(ωρησ]€ΐαν οι 7r[oX]e 
[μιοι €σ€σθαι ψ€ΐλο]ι και οι απο 
[ρωτατοι] τοξ[€νμα]σι και α 
25 [κο]ντιο[ις] και λιθ[ο]ις και σφ€ν 

Col. νϋ. 34• 3• 
[€σ]τ[ω]το9 και ουκ €χ[ορτ€]ς €λ 
πιδα καθ οτι χ[ρ]η α[μυ]νομ€ 
νους σωθηναι Τ€λ[ος] Se τραυ 

ματιζομζνων η8η πολ 


[δο]ναις e[K] πολλού [ΐ]χοντ€ς αλ 6ο λων δια το ev τωι αντωι ανα 


\κη\ν oi[y] μη8€ eTTcXOeiv oiou 
[r ην\ 0ei'yoi'[rey] re yap e 
[κρατούν] κα[ί αναχωΐρονσι^ βττε 

Col. νί. ^^. 2. 

χωμίψν τ[ί ] 

30 \τΓο\τητ[ι και] υπο τη[^ πριν € 
[ρη\μια^ τραχ^ζων [όντων ev 
[οφ οί Λακεδαιμόνιοι [ο]ν[κ ξ8]υ 
[ναντο] διωκ€ΐν όπλα έχον 
[rey χρό\νον μεν ον[ν τ]ινα 

35 [ολίγον ο]ντω'' προς αλληλου? 
[ηκρο]βολισαντο των δε 
[Λακ]εδαιμονιων ονκετι ο 
[iεω9] επεχειν ηι προσπειπτοι 
[εν δν]ναμ€νων γ^νο]ντες αν 

4θ T0V9 ο[ί] ψειλοι βρ[α]δι/^τερον9 ηδη 


οντα9 τωι αμννεσθα[ι και 


αυτοί τηι τε όψει τ•ον• Θαρρ[ει]γ 
το 7τ[λ]€ΐαΓτον ειληφ[ο]Γεί πολ 
λαπλασιοι φαινόμενοι και 


45 ζνν.εΐ-θισμενοι μάλλον μη 
κετί δεινούς αυτούς ομοίως 
σφισι" φαινεσθ[αι] οτ[ι\ ουκ ευθύς 
άξια της πρ[ο]σ[δ]οκια[ς ε]πε 
[πονθεσαν ωσ]περ οτε πρ[ω 

5θ [τον απεβαινον] τηι γ[ν]ω[μηι 
[δεδουλωμενοι] ως επ[ι] Λακε 
[δαιμόνιους] καταφρονη 
[σαντες και εμ]βοη[σά\ντε[ς 
[αθρόοι ωρμησαν ε]π αυτου[ς 

65 [καί εβ άλλον λι]θρ[ις 

στρεφεσθαι σνγκλησαντες 
°^εγωρησαν ες το εσχατον ερυ 
μα της νήσου ου πολύ απεγον 
•/. και τους εαυτών φύλακας ως 

65 . <5* ενεδοσαν ενταύθα δη πολ 
''^/λωι ετι πλε-Τ'ονί βοηι τεθαρ 
ρηκοτες οι ψειλοι επεκειντο. 

και των Λακεδαιμονίων 
όσοι μεν υποχωρούντες εν 

7ο κατ[ελαμβαν]οντο απεθνη 

σκον ο[ι δε πολ]λοι διαφευγον 
τες π[ρος] το ερ[υ]μα μετά των 
ταυτ[ηι] φυλάκων έταξαν 
το παρ[α πα?γ ως αμυνουμε 

75 [^OJi [ηιπ^ρ ην επιμαχον [ 

[οι δ Λθη]ναιοι επισπο[μενοι 
y [πε]ρ[ιοδον μ]εν αυτω[ν και 
κυκλ[ωσιν χωρ]ιου ι[ο•χυι 
ουκ ειχον προσιο[ντες 

8ο δ^ εξ ενάντιας ωσασθ[αι επει 
[ρων]το και χρ[ονον μεν 

[πολύν και της ημέρας το πλει] 
[στον ταλαι]π[ω]ρ[ουμε]νοι αμ[φο 
[τεροι υπο] τε της μάχης ι^αι 

85 [διψης και] η[λιο]υ αντ[ει]χ[ον 
[πειρωμενο]ι ο[ι μεν 


Col. viii (=16. Col. iii). ^6. 3. 
3 lines lost. ^ λΙω* 

"t*^ 95 ol\ 

H^^y v\oi 

go εΙ^απίΐ'η? *! 

^ I*» ' ξ^νμπτωματί 

I- /ίζ|€γαλω[ί] 

l- loo /χ|θ7Γΐ;λαί9 

•/• «I — Γ 

4. α7Γροσδο/ο;]τω? : for the Variant απροσΒοκητοις, which is not otherwise recorded, cf. 
e.g. ii. 93. 4 άπροσδοί(ΐ}τοί? emTTfaovres. It may be doubted whether aureus was retained with 
this reading or was replaced by αϋτοϊς. 

5. η : the omission of iota adscript is unusual in this papyrus. 

6. (iv[ai av : this is the order of CEGMfj ; av elvai ABF. 

10- 1, αναλαμβανονταί en was the Original Order, but en was subsequently inserted 
at the end of 1. 10 and cancelled in 1. ir. en αναλαμβάνοντας is the reading of all MSS. 
Hude prints κάναλαμβάνοντα:, a modification of Abresch's conjecture κα\ άνα\αμβ. 

12. It is unfortunate that the beginning of this line is lost since editors have suspected 
a corruption in Xa^oi^es τψ άπόβασιν. The ordinary reading suits the size of the lacuna 
well enough. 

13. ras vavs, which is added above the line, is found in all MSS. It is not absolutely 
essential, and may be an explanatory adscript which has become incorporated into 
the text. 

(ΐω[θο5 : (θος MSS. The new variant is supported by other examples in Thucydides 
of κατά or πάρα το (Ιωθός, e.g. in this book 1 7. 2, 55. 2, 67. 4. 

14. [Oos es €φορμον της] is rather long for the lacuna, and possibly της was omitted. 

16. απφαινιν: ίττίβαινον, the reading of the MSS., has been commonly changed by 
editors to άπίβαινον, an alteration which is now sanctioned by the papyrus. The singular 
απφαινΐν may also well be right. 

22. Eleven lines are lost at the top of this column. 

23. -^iCKo^ και οι: so the MSS. The papyrus gives no support to the suggested 
emendations {ψιλοί κα\ οίοι Cobet, οί ψιλοί καί Madvig). 

28. ί[κρατονν]•. there would not be room for Hude's conjecture ίκρατοΰντο. 

29. Similar insertions of ν (φΐλκυστικόν occur in 1. 47, 16. ii. 9, &c. 

30. The original omission of χωρίων re may have been caused by the homoioarchon 
of χαλ^ποτητι, but it is noticeable that the words have not been supplied in quite their right 
position. « 

35. The addition of the s of ούτω? is parallel to the insertions of final v; cf. note 
on 1. 29. οντω MSS., Hude. 

38. fnextiv : ineKduv MSS. entxeiv here might be supported by such a use as τάί 


eVt σφΊσι νανς ΐΐτ(χονσαί (viii. 105. 3), but it may be a mere graphical error ; (πΐκβ^ν would 
be more likely to become fnexeiv than vice versa. The t has been reΛvritten. 

41. The superscribed reading, αμννασθαι, is that of the MSS., but αμυν^σθαι is far 
preferable. It is noticeable that the interlinear α has a stroke above it instead of, as 
usual, the letter which was to be replaced. 

42-3. The MSS. reading in this passage is τοΰ βαρσην τό τ:\ΐίστον, Dobree's 
conjecture πιστόν for ττΚάστον having been generally adopted by subsequent editors. 
It is nearly certain that the papyrus agreed with the MSS. in having πλείστον, for though 
there is a hole at the crucial point, the distance between the letters π and € strongly 
suggests that another letter had intervened. There is no trace of any correction. It 
may then be assumed with little chance of error that the tradition of τον θαρρΛν or θαρσΛν 
το ΊτΚΛστον goes back at least to the first century a.d. ; and this reading is no doubt 
intelligible, if not very satisfactory. The interhnear variant τωι Oapptiv, so far from helping 
matters, only creates fresh difficulties, and seems indeed quite impossible. It may be 
noted that the top of the υ of του has been rewritten (by the first hand), but no importance 
should be attached to this circumstance ; the same thing has been done again in the case 

of υ of ΤΓολυ in 1. 63. 

45. The t Λvritten above ei of ξνρίίθισμίνοι has been again cancelled. 
47. σφισι MSS., H.; cf. 1. 29. 

59. The blank space at the end of this line has been filled up by two angular marks ; 
elsewhere one only is usually employed for this purpose. 

60. δίά TO alei is the MSS. reading. The ο of το has been corrected from e (?). 

61. σνγκΚησαντ^ς : elsewhere in the papyrus ξνν is written. 

62. αναχώρησαν, the first Syllable was added afterwards, most probably by the first 
hand ; ίχώρησαν MSS. 

63. ου πολύ απΐχον '. δ ου πολύ άπ(7χ€ MSS. 

65. For the insertion of an elided e in be cf. 1. 80, and 16. iii. 8 ; Be MSS. 

8η : ή8η MSS. 

66. The alternative spelling nXeovi is that of the MSS. 
τίθαρρηκοτας : SO ABFG ; τΐθαρσηκότας Η. with the Other MSS. 

71. 8ιαφ€νγοντ(ί ; 1. 8ιaφvyόvτes, with the MSS. 

72. ιί^ροί] : ey MSS. The π is quite certain. 

76, [01 δ Αθη]ναιοί: na\ oi ΆΘ. MSS. It is just possible, though unlikely, that the 
papyrus had και at the end of the previous line ; there is not room in 1. 76 for και 
before 01. 

80. For the inserted e cf. 1. 65, note. 

86. [π(ΐρωμ€νο^ι scarcely fills the lacuna, in which three or four more letters would be 

87-102. The papyrus here supplies some of the letters missing at the beginnings 
of lines at the top of the first column of 16. The vertical strokes in the text show the 
line of fracture. 

87-8. πιστ€υοντ€ς : maTeCaavres MSS. The reading of the papyrus may be right. 


697. Xenophon, Cyropaedia I. 
24-4 X 12-5 cm. 

A leaf from a codex of Xenophon's Cyropaedia, containing most of i. 6. 
3-1 1, and a small piece of another leaf containing a few letters from ii. i. 30, 
written in a neat uncial hand which is probably not much later than A. D. 200. 
Several corrections or variants have been added above the line, chiefly by 
a second and more cursive hand. The numerous stops (high, middle and low 
point) are for the most part due to the original scribe. 

The condition in which the text of the Cyropaedia still remains after 
centuries of use as a schoolbook is deplorable. Dindorf's Oxford edition, which 
alone gives a serious critical apparatus, omits several of the most important 
MSS., and the accuracy of the collations is not to be depended on. Hug's 
Teubner edition is mainly based on C, a Paris MS., which is one of the best, 
but since Hug's apparatus is not sufficiently detailed for his silence about the 
readings of C to be a trustworthy argument, we are unable to infer what they 
are except where he actually records them. Mr. E. C. Marchant, however, 
whose forthcoming edition of the Cyropaedia may be expected to reduce the 
existing chaos to order, has very kindly placed at our disposal for the passage 
covered by the papyrus his unpublished collations of two of the chief MSS., 
the Bodleianus (Bib. Canon. 39, which in the Anabasis is generally called D, 
though different from Dindorf's D), and the Etonensis. which is closely 
related to C. 

The MSS. of the Cyropaedia divide into two main families ; one group 
consists of AG, which are the basis of Dindorf's edition, C, which in the early 
part of the Cyropaedia supports AG and is the basis of Hug's edition, and the 
Etonensis (Et.) ; while the other group consists of Dindorf's D and the Bod- 
leianus (Bod.), and is supported through a large portion of the passage covered 
by the papyrus by Stobaeus. The character of Dindorf's R and the relation 
of it to the two main groups is uncertain. The papyrus on the whole supports 
the group represented by D, Bod. and Stobaeus, with which its readings agree 
against the AGC, Et, group about twice as often as vice versa, and adds a 
number of variants peculiar to itself. Though not of equal importance to that 
of the Oxyrhynchus fragment of the Anabasis (463), the text of which seems 
to represent the archetype from which the existing MSS. of that work are 
descended in two main traditions, the papyrus is of considerable interest. 

Our collation is with the edition of Dindorf, supplemented occasionally by 
that of Hug. But the only MSS. of which^ the accurate collation is guaranteed 


are the two for information about which we are indebted to Mr. Marchant. 
Fortunately these are typical and important representatives of the two main 


yap €φη άκουσας τοτ€ σον οτι ακοτως αν κα[ί] τταρα θβ Ι. 6. § 3 

ων πρακτικωτ€ρος €ΐη• ωσπ^ρ και παρ ανθρω[π]ων. oans 

μη ο[π]οτ€ ev airopot? €ΐη. Tore KoXaKevor αλλ [ο]τ€ άριστα 


πρατ7[θί] τοτ€ μάλιστα των Θ^ων μ^μν^οι^το• [κα]ι των φι 
6 λων 8 ξφησθα χ^ρηναι ωσαύτως €πιμ€λ€ΐσθα[ι] ουκονν νν § 4 

€φη ω πα[ι] 8ι €Κ€ΐνας τα9 ίπιμίλζίας ηδίΐον μ^ν €ρ)(η 
7i[p]os T0V9 θ€ου9 8€ησομ€νο9 ΐλπιζζΐς Se μ[α]λλον reu^e 
σθαι ων eav 8€η ρτι ovv€i8€vai σαντωι δοκ€ΐ[9 ον] πωποτ€ 
αμξλησας αυτών πάνυ μ€ν ουν ζφη ω πατ[ζ\ρ ως προς 

ΙΟ φίλους μοι τους θ^ους οντάς ούτω 8ιακ€ΐμ[α\ι [[ω]]• τι γαρ € § 5 

φη ω παι ξΚξίνα μ^μνησαι α ποτζ e8oK€i ημ[ιν]' οποσα γαρ 
8ηπου δξδωκασιν οι ^e[ot] μαθοντας ανθρω\π'\ους β^λτξΐ 
[ο]ν πραττ€ΐν• η αν^πιστημονας αυτών οντ[ας]' και άργαζα 
μένους μάλλον ανυτ^ιν η αργονντας και €[πι]μ€λομξ 

15 ν[ο]υς ασφαλ€στ([ρ]ον αν 8ιαγ€ΐν η αφυλακτο[υ]ντας τοντώ. 
[π]α[ρ]€\οντας αυτούς οίους Set. ούτως ημιν €δο[κ]€ΐ Seiv και 
[αιτ]€\ί]σ6αι τα αγαθά πάρα των θζων ναι μα Δι e[0]i7 ο Κύρος § 6 

σου' 7 
μζμνημαι μ^ντοι [^σοϋ]] τ[αυ]τα άκουσας και αρ α[να]γκη ην 

π[€ΐ]6€σθαι τωι λογωι τουτωΐ' και οι8α σ€ ^πιτιθ^ντα αυ 

2θ τ[ωϊ\ ως ουδξ θ^μις €ΐη αιτ€ΐσθαι πάρα των θίων ουτ€ 

ίπ[π]€ΐ;6ίί' μη μαθοντας ιππομαχουντας νικαν ουτ€ 

μ[η €]πισταμ€νους To^eveiv τοξεύοντας κρατειν των e 

\πιστ\ιμζνων τοξ^υζίν ουτ€ μη ίπισταμ[€]νους κυβζρ 

valy] σωζειν ευ^ζ]σθαι νουν κυβερνώντας' [ο]υτε μη σπει 


25 [/90i']ra[s] ye σιτον \ί\υ\(ίσθαι καλόν αυτοις φυεσθαΐ' ούτε μη 
0[ι;λα]τ[τ]ο/χ€»'ου[ί] ye εν πολεμωι σωτηριαν αιτεισθαΐ' πα 
ρ[α γαρ] τους τω[ν θ]€ων θ[ζ]σμονς ταύτα και τα τοιαύτα πα 

L 2 


τ[α iLvai] του\^ 8]ξ. [αββμιστα ef^o/xeroi/y. ομο[ί]ω9 €φησθα 
[eLKo]? €[ι]ναι πάρα θ^ων ατυ-^αν. ωσπ^ρ και τταρ ανθρωπώ 

3© \ατΓρ\ακ[τΥιν τους παράνομα δίομ^νου?' ^κ^ινων Se € § 7 

[φη] ω παι €π€λαθου α ποτ€ €γω και συ €\ογ[ι]ζομ€θα• ω? 
[ίκα]νο[ν] αν eir] και καλόν αν[δ]ρι €ρ[γ]ον et tis δυναιτο €πιμ€ 
[λη]θτ][ναι οπ]ω9 αυτός κα\ο[ς] Τ€ καγαθος δοκ[ι]μως γ€νοιτ[ο] 
[και] τα €[πιτη]δ€ΐα [ο]7Γω? αντ[ο]ς Τ€ και οι οικ^ται ικανως 

35 [εχοΐίν το Se] του[το]ν μ€γ[αλ]ου €ρ[γο]υ ου[τ]ω9 [ο]ντο9 ι;0[ί](Γτ[α 
[σθαι ανθρωπ]ω[ν α]Χ\ω[ν π]ροσ[τ]ατ€υ[€]ιν ο[π]ω9 €ξουα\ιν 
[άπαντα τα €πιτηδ]€ΐα €κ[πλ]€ω και όπως €[σο]νται α[παν 
[rey οωυς Sei τουτ]ο Θαυμ[ασ]τον 8[ηπου] ημ[ιν] τοτ€ [e 
[φαινζτο ναι μα Α]ι ζφη [ω π]ατ€[ρ μβμνημαι] κα[ι του § 8 

4θ [το σου λέγοντος σ]υν€8[οκ]€ΐ κα[ι €μοι υπ€ρμ€]γ^θ€ς €ΐ 

[ναι €ργον το καλώς αρ])(^βι[ν κα]ι νυ[ν γ €φη ταύτα] μ[οι So 
[κ€ΐ όταν προς αυ]το το [αρ)(]€ΐν [σκοπών λογιζω]μ[αι ο 
[ταν μζντοι προς αλ^ου[ς ανθρώπους ιδων κατανο 
[ησω οίοι re οντ^ς Bi]ayi[yvovTai αρχ^οντβς και οίοι οντ€ς 

45 [ανταγωνισται ημι]ν €[σονται πάνυ μοι δοκ€ΐ αισχβον €ΐ 

] ον[τα5 

[ναι τοιούτους υποπ]τη[ξαι 

14 lines lost 


61 €ρχη τοις πάρα Κυα^αρζ^ω^ χρημασιν €γωγ€ (φη ο Κύρος• § 9 

οισθα δί (φη οποσα αυτωι (στιν• μα τον Δι (φη ο Κύρος' 

ου μ(ν δη όμως δη' τούτοις πιστ€υ€ΐς τοις αδηλοις' οτι 

δ( πολλών μβν ου δ(ησ(ΐ πολλά δ( και άλλα νυν avay 

65 κηι δαπαναν αυτόν γινωσκ€ΐς• γινωσκω (φη ο Κύρος' 

(αν ουν (φη αυτόν (πιλιπη η δαπάνη και (^ξ^ων ψ(υδη 

ται• πως σοι (ξ(ΐ τα της στρατιάς δηλον οτι ου καλώς' 

αταρ (φη ω πατ(ρ συ (ΐ (νοραις τίνα πορον και απ (μου 


γ€ vo 

av 7Γροσ[Γγίγί/οΤ]/ΐ€ΐ/οι/ eeos en ev φιλιαι ξσμ^ν Xeye* e § lo 

70 ρωταί €φη ω παι τούτο ei tis [α]ν απο σον iropos προσγξ 
VOLTO' ατΓο TIVOS 5e μάλλον [ei]/fo9 πορον yevcaOai η α 
π[ο] του δυναμιν ^χοντ[ο^:\ συ δζ π^ζην μ^ν δυναμό/ e 
\ων €νθ€νδ€ €[ρ)(\η ανθ rjs Οίδ οτι πολλαπλασιαν αλλή 
ουκ αν δίκαιο' [ϊ\τηηκον δξ σοι οτηρ κρατιστον \το'\ Μηδώ 

75 σνμμαχον ίσται• ποιον ουν eOvos των 7Γ€ ρι^ ου δοκ€ΐς και 
\αριζζσβαι βουλομ^νον υμιν υπ[η^ρ€τησΐΐν• και φόβου 
μ^νον μη τι πάθη α γ^ρη σε συν Κυαξαρ€ΐ κοινηι σκοπεί 


σθαι μηποτ €πιλιπη [[τί]] υμα^ ων δξΐ υπαργζΐν και βθου^ 
€V€Ka μ[η])(^ανωμ€νον προσόδου πορον το[δ]€ δξ [παν 

8ο [των μάλιστα μοι μξμνησο μηδ€ποτ€ αναμ€ν€ΐν το] 

ποριζ€σ[θα]ι τα €πιτη[δ€]ια [€σ]τ αν η χρ^'α σε α[ναγκαση αλλ 
όταν μάλιστα ξυπορης τοτ€ προ τη? απορίας μ[αλλον μη 
χ^ανω και γαρ τβυξξΐ μάλλον παρ ων αν δζη μτ] α[πορ€ΐν 
δοκών και αναίτιος e[aei] π[α]ρα τοις [σ]€αυτου στρ[ατιωταις 

85 6Κ τούτου δξ μάλλον [κ]α[ι] υπο αλλω[ν] α[ίδους τξυ^η και ην 
Tivas βουλή €υ ποιησα[ι τηι δυναμ€]ι η κακώς μάλλον 
ecoy αν ^χ^ης τα δέοντα οι στρατιωται υπηρ^τησουσι σοι 
και πιστικωτατους δξ λογούς σαφ ισθι τοτ€ δυνησ^ι λε 
γζίν. οτανπ^ρ και €νδζΐκνυσ[θαι μα]λιστα δ[υνη ποΐ€ΐν ι 

go κανος ων και ξυ και κα[κως αλλ] €φη ω π[α]τ€ρ α[λ]λω[ς re § 11 


μοι δοκ€ίς ταύτα πάντα καλώς λζγ€ΐν και οτι [[ωΐ']] [μβν 
νυν λημψονται οι στρατ[ιωται ο]ι^δ]€ΐ[ς αυτών €μοι χάριν 
€ΐσ€ταΐ' ισασι γαρ ξφ οις αυτούς Κυα^αρης αγ[ζται συμμάχους 


οτι δ αν προς τοις ζΐρη[μ\ζν[ο]ις λαμβανη τ[ις ταύτα και τι 
95 l^vly ν]ομ[ι6)ϋ\σι] κα[ι χάριν τούτων €ΐκος €ΐδ€ναι τω διδον 

ΤΙ' το δ' ξχοντα δυ[ναμιν ηι €στι μ^ν φίλους €υ ποιουντας αντ 
[ω]φ[ζΧ\£[ι]σθα[ι] €στι δ[ξ ίχθρους €χ]οντα [π€]ιρ[ασθαι τισασθαι e 

[π]€ΐτα αμ€λ€[ιν] τ[ο]υ πορι[ζ]ζσθαι oui τι \ΐφη ήττον τι τούτο αι 
\θ']χρον €ΐναι η ei τις €χων [μ€ν α]γρο[υς €χων 5e (ργατας 



100 \oLS OLV €ργαζοιτο €π€ΐ]τα [ξωη 8]7j rrfv γην αργούσαν ανω 
[φζλητον €Lvai ως γ €μον ΐφη μηδ^ποτΐ αμέλησοντος τον] 
\τα €πιτη8€ΐα τοις στρ]ατ[ιω]ται[ς συμμηγανασθαι 

[ ] 


Ι05 ] • [ 

π/30ί] σ€ [ 


οΚον και τα^ιν [όΚην €καλ€ΐ δβ και €τιμα οποτβ τινας ιδοι II. ι. § 3° 
109 '^^^ τοντρ [ 

Ι. €07? : so AGR, Et., Dind. ; om. D, Bod., Stob. Fior. 48. 68. 

β€ων : so AG (first hand) R, Dind. ; των θΐών DG (corr.), Bod., Et., Stob. 

2. ιτρακτικωτΐροί: SO ADGR, Bod., Stob., Dind. ; πραγμαηκώτΐρης Et. 

3. κολακΐυοι : SO ADG, Bod., Et., Dind. ; KoXaKeveiv R first hand. 

άριστα : τα άριστα CDGR, Bod., Et., Dind. ; άριστα A, Stob. 

4. μΐμνωτο : SO AG (fifst hand, with η above the line in a later hand), Et., Dind. ; 
ptpvTjTo L ; μ€μνοϊτο corrected by the first hand to μΐμνψο Bod. ; μ^μνοίωτο D ; μίμνψαι 

5. ωσαύτως '. SO DR, Bod. ; ωσαύτως ούτως AG (with dotS OVer ούτως), Et., Stob., Dind. 
€ττιμΐ\(ΐσΘάϊ\ : SO MSS. ; ΐΤΓΐμίΧΐσθαι Dind. 

6. δι: so D, Bod., Stob.; δίά y AG, Dind. ; Sw' Et. 
epxq : so MSS. ; epxei Dind. 

7 . θΐους δΐησομΐνος : SO ADG (first hand) R, Et., Dind. ; ^f our οντάς ούτω διακΐΐμίνονς 

G marg. in later hand, and with οΰτως Bod. which adds ΐλπίζΐΐς δε ού πώποτ. 

τ(ν^^σθαι : so AGR, Bod., Et., Dind. ; τΐύξασθαι D. 

8. eav: so ADGR, Bod., Stob., Dind. ; & Et. 

avveiBevai σαντωι : SO MSS., Dind. ; ^vveibevai ίαυτω Stob. 

9. τρος φΐΚους, the original reading of the papyrus, agrees with AGR, Et., Dind.; 
προσφιλΐΐς, the Correction, with D, Bod., Stob. 

10. τους βίους οντάς'. SO D, Bod., Stob. J οντάς τους θΐούς AGR, Et., Dind. 

11. ω παι : SO DR, Bod., Stob. ; ό πατήρ AG, Dind. ; 3> παΐ 6 πατήρ C, Et., which has 
ό above ω. 

ΐΚίΐνα μιμνησαι '. SO D, Bod. ', μίμνησαι (Kelva AGR, Et., Stob., Dind. 

οποσα yap 8ηπου : SO Bod., Stob. ; όπόσαπΐρ 8ήπον D, with dots over πο by a later 
hand ; ως οπ^ρ R ; ώ^ απ^ρ AG, Et., Dind. 

12. δεδωχασιι/ : SO MSS., Dind. ; hehωκaσιv ήμϊν Stob. 

14. ανυτΐΐν: SO AG (second hand), Dind. ; awnv D, Stob.; άνΰττ^ιν G (first hand) R 
in an erasure, Et. 

€\πϊ\μΐ\ομ(ν[ο'\νς '. SO DR, Stob., Dind.; ΐπψΐΚουμίνονς AG, Et. For βΐΚτί^ογ, κ.τ,λ., 
Bod. has και ^ρτγαζομίνονς μάΧλον άνύΐΐν η αργούς οντάς κα\ (πιμ(\ονμΐνονς άσφα\ΐστ€ρον y hv 

15• «": so MSS. and Stob.; om. Dind. following Stephanus. 


τούτων : SO MSS., Dind. ; om. Stob. ; τ<.ντων {nepi) Madvig followed by Hug. 

16. avTovs (i.e. avTovs): iavrovs D, Bod., Stob. ; ovu τοιούτους invrovs AGR, Dind.; 
δ' ovv TotovTovs iavTOvs Et. 

17. τα αγαθά: SO D ; τάγαθά AGR, Et., Stob., Dind. ; τα αγαθά τά Bod. 

18. τ[αι/]τα : SO D, Bod. ; τοιούτων G ; τοιαύτα AR, Et., Dind. There is certainly 

not room for τ[οιαν]τα. 

Ψ : so D, Bod., Stob. ; ^e AGR, Et., Dind. 

19. τουτωι: SO D, Bod., Stob. ; om. AGR, Et., Dind. 

και οιδα σε (ττιτιθΐντα αυτ\ωι\^ '. SO D, Bod. ; κα\ oida πμοστιθίντα αυτω Stob. ; (πιτιθίντα 

αίιτω G (second hand in marg.) ; κα\ γαρ οΊ8ά ae λίγοντα aei AG (first hand) R, Et., Dind. 

20. ovTe: όντως corr. to oure by second hand Bod.; ovre other MSS., Dind. Similarly 
with ovT€ in 1. 21. 

23. τοξινην: so D, Bod., Stob.; om. AGR, Et., Dind. 

24. ΐνχ[€]σθαι : SO DGR, Bod., Et., Stob., Dind. ; 'ίχεσθαι A. 
vavv: so Stob.; vavs MSS., Dind. 

[ojvre : so Stob. ; ovhi MSS., Dind. 

σΐΐ({ρον\τα[ς\ : SO MSS., Dind. ; σπύραρτας (Stob.) is equally possible. 

25. avTois σιτον: SO DG (second hand). Bod., Stob. AG (first hand) R, Et. agree 
with the original reading of the papyrus in omitting σιτορ (so Dind.). 

owe : οϋδ€ MSS., Stob., Dind. 

26 Trap[a : so ADR, Bod., Et., Stob., Dind. ; rrfpl G. 

27. ταύτα και τα τοιαύτα παντ[α•. SO Bod., Stob., and (with the omission of πα'ίτα) D ; 
πάντα τα τοιαύτα AGR, Et., Dind. 

28. [α]θψιστα: SO AG (corrected) LM, Bod., Stob.; αθέμιτα DEHRG (first hand), 
Et., Dind. 

29. Oewv: so ADG, Stob., Dind. ; τών βίων R, Et. 
trap : so Stob. ; παρά MSS., Dind. 

30. παράνομα \ SO ADGR, Bod., Stob., Dind. ; τά παράνομα Et. 

8f ί[φη : so G (second band in marg.), Bod. ; 8' €φη D ; 8e AG (first hand) R, Et., Dind. 

31. α ποτ€ : so ADG, Bod., Et., Dind.; δποτΐ R. 

32. av: om. MSS., Dind. After 8ύναιτο Bod. has ανδρί (sic). 

33. οπ]ως : SO D, Bod. ; όπως αν AGR, Et., Dind. 
KaXo[s] Ti : T€ /caXo'ff MSS., Dind. 

δο^φωί : so ADG, Bod., Et., Dind. ; om. R. 

34. τα {[πιτη\δ(ΐα: SO MSS. here and in 1. 37 ; ταττιτ^δβια Dind. 
[ο]πως : SO D, Bod. ; om. AGR, Et., Dind. 

o£ : so AD, Bod., Et., Dind. ; om. G. ; above the line in R. 

35. ουΜωϊ [ojiiTOf : SO D, Bod. ; οντος ούτως AGR, Dind. ; αγαθόν οντος όντως Et. 

νφ[ι]στ[ασθαι : SO DR, Bod. ; ίπίστασθαι AG, Et., Dind. ; (φι with dots underneath 
before ϊπίστασθαι L. 

36. φνσ[ιν άπαντα : SO D, Bod. ; βξονσι πάντα AGR, Et., Dind. What reading the 
papyrus had is uncertain. 

37. α[παΐ'Τ€ί : πάντες MSS., Dind. 

38. TOTe [(φαινίτο : ίφαίνΐτο elvai MSS., Dind. 

40. σου: SO AGR, Bod., Et., Dind.; ore σον D. It is unlikely that the papyrus 
had D's reading for it τοντο is rather long for the end of 1. 39. 

σ]υJ'eδ[oκ]et : SO ί), Bod., Stob. ; συνώόκ(ΐ ovv AGR, Et., Dind. 

41. νν[νγ: γ' is omitted by R, Et., and Stob., inserted in ADG, Bod. (so Dind.). 
Considerations of space make it probable that the papyrus read γ. 

ταύτα] μ[οι boKd : the restoration of this is uncertain. We have followed the reading 


of Stobaeus ταΰτά μοι boKel, which suits the lacuna best, ταντά μοι τα αυτά AG, and, with 

the addition of Sojcei, CR, Et. ; ταντά μοι δοκεΐ ταΰτα D. 

43. [μίντοι^•. so D, Stob. ; /LieWoiye AGR, Et., Dind. Which reading the papyrus had 
is uncertain. 

44. [oioi re]: SO D ; om, re RG (second hand in marg.), Dind.; οΊοί re oWes δια- 
yiyvovTM αρχοντΐς και is Omitted by AG (first hand), Et., owing to homoioteleuton. 

46. The restoration is uncertain. CR, Et. have eivai τ6 τοιούτους avTovs οντάς υποπτηξαι, 

and so D with the omission of τό ; eu/ai τ6 toiovtois ίποπτ. A (so Dind.) ; flvai τό toiovtovs 
(apparently) Ιποπτ. G, αυτούς οντάς being added over the line by a later hand. Probably 
the papyrus originally had eivai τοιούτους υποτη-ηξαι, οντάς and perhaps αυτούς being added 
over the line by the corrector. 

61. epx»7 • so MSS. ; epxei Dind. 

Κυαξαρΐΐ, the corrected reading of the papyrus, agrees with D. CAGR agree with the 
reading of the first hand Κυαξαριω. Κυαξάρτ] Bod., Dind. 

eymye : Ιγωγ' Dind. 

61-2. ο Κνρος οισθα he (φη: 6 Kvpos τΊ 8e ίφη οίσβα CDR, Bod., Et., and in marg. 
by a later hand G, Dind. ; om. AG (first hand). 

62. eaTiv. ΐστι MSS., Dind. 

63. όμως δη, the reading of the first hand, is clearly an error, and ought to have been 
erased by the corrector Avhen he inserted όμως Se, ου μίν Βη οΐσθα δμως 84 D ; ού μίν δή 
όμως hi AGR, Bod., Et., Dind. 

πιστΐυΐΐς : SO moSt MSS., Dind. ; maTeCeiv Bod. 

64. ου δ^ησίΐ : σοι δίήστ] D, Bod. J σοι δεησΐΐ CR ; δίησΐΐ AG, Dind.; σοι δΐήσοι Et. 
πολλά δε και αλΧα νυν αναγκηι δαπαναν αυτόν '. ΟΤΧΪ. αυτόν AGR, Et., Dind. J πολλά δε ανάγκη 

αυτόν νυν δαπανάν D, Bod. 

65. γινωσκΐΐς : om. Bod. J exe'ivo ου γιγνώσκ€ΐς AGR, Et., Dind.; eKflvo ov •γιγνωσκ(ΐς 

D in marg. by later hand ; δαπανάν ίκ^Ίνον ου γιγί/ώσ /cety Hug following Madvig. 

66. eav ουν (φη αυτόν ίπιλιττη η δαπάνη και : (άν ουν ΐφη αντον η δαπάνη υπο\(ίπτ) η και D, 
and with άποΧύπτ] for ύπολε/π»; Bod. ην ουν '4φη ίπιΚίπτ] αυτόν η δαπάνη ή και Α, Et., Dind., 

R (with ΐπϊλ^πη by the first hand) and (with η added by a later hand) G. 
ψΐνδηται : so D ; ψ^υδη A ; ψ(ύσίται G, Bod. J ψ(ΰσηται CR, Et., Dind. 

67. πως σοι ί^ε ι : SO CDR, Bod., Et. ; & παΐ πως αρ e|ei (οΓ perhaps ap) G, Dind.; 

ω παΐ πως όρ4ζη Α. 

δϊ^λοι^ ΟΤΙ ου κάΚως : SO AGR, Et., Dind. ; ου κάΚως δήλοι» οτι D and (reading δηλονότι) Bod. 

68. €φη ω πατΐρ: SO AGR, Et., Dind. ; 2> πάτερ ίφη D, Bod. 

69. προσγ(νομ(νον: SO DR, Bod., Dind. AG, Et. agree with the reading of the first 

hand προσγι(^•γ)νομ(νον. 

7 Ο. ω παι τούτο : SO AG (first hand) R, Dind. ; τοΐιτο Si παΐ DG (in marg. second hand). 
Bod., Stob. Flor. 48. 70 ; S> παΐ Et. 

ei τις [oji/ : SO DG (second hand in marg.), Bod. ; ει τις Stob. ; πως αν R ; που άν AG 
(first hand), Dind. ; τίς άν Et. 

προσ-γΐνοιτο : SO D, Bod., Stob., Dind. ; yevoiTo AG (first hand, τακτικόν being added in 
in the margin) R, Et. 

71. δε: so ADGR, Et., Stob., Dind. ; δεί Bod. 

leiJKos : SO D, Stob.; (Ικής ίστι CAGR, Et., Dind.; om. Bod., which also omits πόροι/. 
γΐνΐσθαι : so D, Bod., Et,, Stob. (Hug) ; προσγ4νΐσβαι AGR, Dind. 

72. μ(ν : so AGR, Bod., Dind. ; om. D. Et. places μίν after δύναμιν. 
(χων evBevhe : SO D, Bod., Et. ; ΐνθίνδΐ ΐχων AGR, Dind. 

73• «[px]'? : so MSS.; ερχει Dind. 

οιδ : so AG (first hand) R, Et., Dind.; ευ οιδ' DG (second hand). Bod. 


74. Μ»7δωυ : SO ADGR, Dind. ; των ^η^ωρ Bod., Et. 

75. συμμαχον \ SO ADG, Bod., Dind. ; om, R ; δοκβΐ (Tvai σύμμαχον ίσται Et. 
toKfii : so Bod. ; Βοκ(ΐ τι (apparently) D ; δοκεί σοι AGR, Et., Dind. 

77. πάθη : SO ADGR, Bod., Dind. ; πόθοι Et. 

Κναξαρει : SO ADL and (in an erasure) R, Et. ; Κναξάρτ) G, Bod., Dind. 
κοινηι : this word is placed before συν by the MSS. and Dind. 

78. ίττιλίπτ; : so AGR, Et., Dind. ; νπολ^ίπτ) D, Bod. 

υμα:: SO ADGR, Bod., Dind. ; ημάς Et. 

(θους: Wovs hi Dind. with all MSS. except Et., which has κα\ ίθονς μοι μψνησο added 
by a second hand in the margin against evtKa μηχανάσθαι προσόδου πόρον τ6δ€ be πάντων μάλιστα. 
79• μ[η]χανωμίνον • SO D, Bod. ; μηχανάσθαι AGR, Et., Dind. 

To[8]e: SO CDR, Bod., Et., Stob. Flor. 48. 71, Dind.; τό AG. 

81. τα €πιτη[8ί\α: cf. note on 1. 34. ^ 
Γβσΐτ : so ADG, Bod., Et., Stob., Anon. ap. Boisson, Anecd. i. p. 113, Dind. ; ewi R. 

82. όταν . . . εύπορη:: SO AGR (second hand), Et., Stob., Anon., Dind.; 5re . . . ^Ιπορύς 

D ; 0T€ μΐν . . . eimopeh Bod. ; όταν . . . finropns R (first hand). . /- /c 

μ[αΧ\ον μη^^ανω : SO DG (in marg. by second hand), Stob. ; om. μάλλον AG (first hand) 
R, Et., Anon., Dind. 

83. Τ6υ^«: so D, Anon. (?), Et., Dind.; τοξ^ύτ,Α; τ^υξη GR, Bod., Stob. . . 
α[πορ(ΐν] δοκών : SO D, Bod., Stob. ; Άπορος δοκών elvai A, Et., Anon., G (omittmg δοκω^), 

and {Άπορος being added in marg. by a later hand) L, Dind. α[πορος eivai is too long 
for the lacuna. ^ 

84. και : so D, Stob. ; κα\ %τι GR, Bod., Et., Dind. ; κα\ αιτι Α. 

[σΐίαυτου : SO perhaps R (first hand, σ being over an erasure) ; αυτού AL (first hand) ; 
iavTout; σαντοϊ) G, Et., Stob., Dind. ; σαυτοΰ (σ corr. from i) Bod. 

85. TovTov. so ADGR, Bod., Stob., Dind.; τούτων Έί. 
Be: so ADR. Bod., Stob., Dind.; δ.^ G. 

αλλωΜ : so AGR, Er., Dind.; των Άλλων D, Bod., Stob. 

86. τινας : so AG (second hand) R, Bod., Dind. ; τίνα DG (first hand ?), Et., Stob. 
βουλή : so ADGR, Bod., Stob., Dind. ; βοίλ€ΐ Et. 

€v ; so D, Bod., Et. ; η el AGR, Stob., Dind. 

ποιησα\ι'. SO ADG, Bod., Et., Stob., Dind. ; πoιeΊσθaι R (first hand apparently). 

Γτ«ι δυ^.αμ.> : SO here AGR, Et., Dind. ; D, Bod., and Stob. place it after βουλ^ ^ 

87. eως av eχης τα Beovra ot στρατιωται υπηρ€τησουσι σοι: SO, with the exception of eχωσι 
for eχrlς, AGR, Et., Dind. ; eως &v ίχωσιν υπ. σοι οΊ στρ. eχovτeς τά δέοντα D, Bod. ; iπηpeτησoυσιv 
οι στρατιωται eχovτeς τα δίοντα Stob. -it.» i a r 

88. πιστικωτατονς Be λογούς σαφ ισθι Tore δυvησeι λεγ«,/ : SO, With δυvησr, corrected trom 
δvvί,σeι by second hand, D, and, with δυνηστ], Stob.; πιστLκό>τepov τους Be λόγους κ.τ.λ. COrr. 
to και πιστικωτάτους τους λόγους κ.τ.λ. Bod. ; κα\ πιστοτίρους σάψα ισθι Βυνησρ λογούς τοτβ 
λeyeιv Et. ; πiστικωτe'povς σάφ' 'ισθι λόγους Βυνηστ, TOTe \eyeiv AG and. With δυ^σ^ λογούς, Κ ; 
πΐιστικωτίρους σάφ' "ισθι λόγους Bυvησeι TOTe λeγeιv Dind. It is tolerably Certain that the 
papyrus had δυvησeι not δυνηση. r^ η -r•. 

80. oTavnep : SO CDR, Bod., Stob., Dind.; Sθevπep A; οσα,Γβρ G ; oσovπep ht. ^ _ 
πoιeιv ι]κανος ων και eυ : SO D, Stob. ; κα\ el• ττοιά. Ίκαν'ος S>v AGR, Et., Dind. ; eυ πο^ιρ 
Ικανός i)v κα\ κακώς (και κακώς in rasuro) Bod. ^ ^ a /^ t? Λ 

91. Boκeις ταύτα πάντα καλώς λeγeιv : SO D; καλώς δοκΛ ταΟτα λeγeιv πάντα Α(^ Κ and 

(with λeγeις) Et., Dind., and (omitting πάντα and with καλώς . . . ταύτα in rasura) Bod 

α [μ^Η "•''' Μΐ^^ονται : SO DR ; ά μίν al viv λί,μψ. Bod. ; ά μev S>v νυν λημψ. G (first hand), 

with uei/ ad viv added in marg. by a later hand ; hv μέν νϋν λίγονται ληψeσθaι A, Et., Uind., 
with which the reading of the first hand in the papyrus so far agrees m having ^v. 


92. τοντων χάριν MSS. (except Et. χάριν τοντων) Dind. ,' but there is not room for 
τοντων in the lacuna. 

93. αυτονς : SO ADGR, Bod., Dind. ; avros Et. 

Κυαξαρης ay[erat : SO AGR, Et., Dind. ', ayerai Κναξάρης D, Bod. ; eVoyfrai Cobet, 

followed by Hug. 

95. For eiKOf D and Bod. have πΚ(Ίστψ sIkos, and η\ύστψ is added in the margin of 
G by a later hand. There is not room for πΚΐΐστην in the lacuna, so the papyrus probably 
agreed in omitting it with AG (first hand) R, Et., Dind. 

96. to: so AG, Dind.; τόν D, Bod.; τώ Et. 

(χοντα : so ADG (second hand) R, Bod., Dind. ; exovn G (first hand) ; ίχοντι (with α 
above t) pev Et., omitting μίν after eVrt. The supplement at the end of the line is longer 
than it should be by three or four letters, but the only variant is ποωνντα (R) for ποωνντας 
ADG (corrected), Dind. 

97. €στι : so DGR, Bod., Et., Dind.; en A. 
€χοντα is bracketed by Hug, following Madvig. 

e[7r]eiTa : SO AG, Et., Dind. {fneir) ; απ αντων DR, Bod., which has τικτάσθαι fof 

98. ττορι[^^σβαι: SO ADG, Dind., agreeing with the first hand; πορΊζειν R, Bod., 
agreeing wiih the corrector. 

Ti : so ADG, Dind. ; τοι R, Et. 

ήττον τι τοντο αισίχρον eivai : τοϋτο αίσχρον ήττον (ίναι D ; τοντο αίσχρον ήττον fivai δ' (at δ' 

in an erasure) Bod. ; ήττον τοϋτο elvai αϊσχρόν AG, Dind., and (with τοι for τι in an erasure) R ; 
ησσόν τι τοΐιτο (ivai αΙσχρόν Et. 

99. €χων [μίν: SO ADGR, Bod., Dind. ; μ^ν ΐχων Et. 

100. 8]η: so G in marg. ; om. ADR, Et., Dind. The reading of the papyrus is 

1 09. KOI τούτο : τοιούτο AD ; τοιούτον G, Dind. 

698. Xenophon, Cyropaedia I. 
23-5 X 7-9 fz«. 

Two fragments from the conclusion of the first book of Xenophon's 
Cyropaedia, with the title, which is written, as usual, below the final column. 
We assign the small detached piece from § 45 to the previous column owing 
to the height of the papyrus. It is remarkable that what according to the 
accepted division are the opening words of Book ii, τοιαύτα \)λν . . . Πβρσίδο?, are 
here made the last sentence of Book i. The text does not otherwise differ from 
that of Dindorf. 

On the verso of the papyrus are parts of two columns of a money-account 
in a cursive hand, which apparently is not later than about the middle of the 
third century. The text on the recto, therefore, which is written in sloping 


oval uncials of the common type, is to be assigned to the earlier part of the 

Col. i. 

υη αυτών τούτων Βι]κην [ μ[^]χρ^ τω»/ ορ[ι]ων τ[η9 Hep 

ΐδοσαν πολλοίί δ ο]νκ rjfi [ ^ σιδο^• 

... ΙΟ αζνοφων[το^ 

Κνρον [ 
Col. ϋ. ήαιδαα 

" [« 

[ov8ey θανμαστ[ον ου 

γα[ρ αν]αγκη αντο[ί9 ^στιν 

5 ω[ν α\ν μ[η] ίθίλωσιν [εττι 

μ[ί\€\σβαι τοιαύτα [μ^ν δη 

a(j)[L]KOVTO δ[ια]λ€γο[μ€νοι 

5. The vestiges are rather in favour of ^β.Χ.α. (R), but Θ.Χ,α. (ADG) is not 

IslSy o°bfe?v;d'r*e?r:^orio„, this sentence commences the next Book 
according to the ordinary division. 

699. Theophrastus, Characters. 

7 X 4-2 cm. 

The text of the Characters of Theophrastus is notoriously insecure, and 
offers a problem upon which an early papyrus of any part of the book might 
be expected to throw some light. The present fragment, which contains the 
end ofch. .5 and the beginning of ch. .6, is however disappointing in this 
respect giving a version which seems to be not less of the nature of a com- 
pendium thaf that of the Codex Monacensis. Unfortunately that MS mcludes 
onlv the first twenty-one chapters so that an actual comparison is not possible. 
Ttinlrest of th'e papyrus^ therefore, chiefly lies in f wing th^^^^^^^^^^ 
of such compendia of the Characters. It is written in rather small oval uncials, 
which probably date from the earlier part of the third century. 


[• • •]χ[ ^3 letters [kJos tolovto^ iSiaJj 

[K]qi λ€γ€ΐν π[ μ^ν λζγων ουκ [αγαθοί 

[a]yTOv σωσ[α9 εττί σκη ίο [πο]λνκοίρανιη ei[s κοιρα 

[ν\ην [ ΙΌ? €στω €[iy] βασιΧ\€υ9 

5 [η ο\ι\Ύ[αργ]ΐία ζστ[ίν φιλαρχ^ι και του δημον )(^ζ[ίροτο 

[α] Τί9 ισχνο9 ι[ νον[ν]τοί πολλοί/? [Xeyei πα 

[γ]λΐ)(^ομ€νη [ο 5e ολιγαρχι [ρ€λθ]ων apK€ae[ij/ eva 

1-4. The conclusion of ch. 25 [nepl tfiXias) in the ordinary version is καΐ 8ιηγ€ΐσθαί. ώί 

Kivbvvfvaas eva σίσωκα των φίλων' κα\ eicrayeiv προς τον κατακ(Ίμ(νον σκ(•>^ομ(νονς τους 8ημότας και 
τους φνΧίτας, και τούτων αμα ίκάστω διηγΰσθαι ως αντος αντον τοις ίαντον χ(ρσ\ν eVt σκηνην (κόμισαν. 

If Xfyeij' in 1. 2 is right there is no room for ικομισ^ν. λιτψ (not φυλΐτην), which is an 
alternative, suggests nothing. In 1. 4 after [v'^^v is a broad blank space marking the end of 
the chapter. 

5. Ch. 26 (π(ρ\ ολιγαρχίας) begins 8όξ(ΐ(ν (δ*) Άν fivai η ολιγαρχία φιλαρχία τις Ισχυρώς 
κίρΒονς γλιχομίνη. 6 8e ολιγαρχικός τοιούτος οΊος τον δήμου βονλ(νομΐ'νον (βονλομ. MSS.) τίνας τω 
αρχοντι προσαιρησοιται [προαιρ. MSS.) της πομπής τους σνν(πιμίλησομίνονς παρΐλθων άποφηνασθαι 
(^άποφηνας €χ(ΐ MSS.) ως δίί αυτοκράτορας τούτους fivai' καν άλλοι προβάλλωνται δ«α λίγΐΐν Ίκανος 
61? (στ IV, τούτον be δτι 8e'i Άνδρα (ίναι, κάϊ των Ομηρου επών τοΰτο ev μόνον κατίχΐΐν, δτι ουκ αγαθόν, 

κ.τ.λ. (omitting (ϊς βασιλ(νς). The definition of ολιγαρχία has generally been recognized as 
unsatisfactory and the MSS. disagree, Pal.- Vat. omitting φιλαρχία and the others reading 
ισχυρού for Ισχυρώς, The papyrus variant ισχνός, which gives the sense aimed at by 
Fischer's emendation of κίρδους to κράτους, is very likely right, though the word at the end 
of 1. 6 remains doubtful. The first letter, if not i, seems to be γ, η, or π. Besides being 
much more compressed the text of the papyrus shows a different order, 11. 12-4 correspond- 
ing to what in the MSS. precedes the Homeric quotation. In 11. 9 sqq. it is not certain 
that p(v, νος, κ.τ.λ. are the beginnings of the lines since the papyrus is broken immediately 
before those letters ; but the arrangement proposed is the most probable. 

700. Demosthenes, De Corona. 

14-5 X 4-4 cm. 

This fragment is a strip from the bottom of a column containing parts of 
pp. 230-1 of the De Corona. The lines being incomplete both at beginning 
and end, it is doubtful how they should be divided ; the arrangement given 
below is therefore hypothetical. The hand is a rather irregular upright uncial 
of medium size, and more probably of the second century than the third. A 
high point is occasionally used, this and the diaeresis being the only lection 


marks that occur. Our collations in this and the other oratorical fragments 
(701-4) are with the Teubner edition of Blass. 

Αθη]ναιοι και τΓρ[οσηκον ίσω? 
CDS κατ eJ/ceiiOi/y tovs χρον[ον9 eive 
τα 7Γρα]γματα αναμνησ[αί ινα 
irpos τον] [[τταροίτα]] ϋπαργο[ντα και 

5 ρον €κα]στα θζωρητ^αι^ το[ν γαρ Φωκί 

κου συν\σταντο^ πολ€μ[ου ου 8i € 

μ€ ου yap] eyooye ζπο\ιτίυ[ομην πω 
Tore πρώτον μ^ν νμ]€ΐ9 ρ[υτω δί€ 

[κ€ΐσθ€ <ΰστ€ Φωκ€α9 μ€ν βουλξ] 
ΙΟ σθαι σω]θηναί κα[ηΓ€ρ ου δικαία ποί 

ουντα]9 ορωντ^ί [Θηβαωι^ Se ο 

τιουν αν] ζψησθηναί πα[θουσίν 

ουκ αλογω]9 [ο]νδ αΒίκα>$ a[vTOis οργι 

ζομζνοι ο]ι^ yap €υτυχηκ€[σαν €v 
15 Λ€υκτρο]ι$ [ο]υ μ^τριω? €Κ^χρηντο e 

7Γ€ίτα η Π€]λ[ο]ποννησο9 απ[ασα δι 

€ΐστηκ€ΐ] και ουθ ο[ι] μισου[ντ€ί 

Αακίδάγμονίου^ 'Cct^qjov [ούτως 

ωστ€ a]v€\€iv αυτούς ου[θ οι προ 
2 ο Tepov δ]ί ξΚΗνων αρ)(ον[τ€ς κυ 

piOL των] πολιών ήσαν α[λλα τις 

ην ακρι]τος και πάρα τουτο[ις .... 

. . . epijy και ταραχηι• ταυ[τα δξ ο 

ρων ο Φίλ]ί7Γπο5' ου yap ην αίφανη 
25 τοις παρ] ΐκαστοις προδοτα[ις χρη 

ματα αν]α\ισ•κων παντας [ 

Ε]λλησι αν 

3• vfMs, which Bl(ass) omits after άναμνησαι with SL, may have stood in the papyrus. 

4. παρόντα which was first written was a mere slip. 

5. The correction is probably by a second hand. 



8. The papyrus most likely had either rore or ποτ(, like the other MSS. ijare] Bl. 

14. εντν\ηκΐ\σαν '. ηίτνχηκΐσαν Έ>\. 

1 8. ισχνον \οντωί'. όντως ισχύον WiSS, 

22-3. The usual reading here is καϊ πάρα rois aXKois απασιν fpis, but some MSS. 
(including FYQO) omit παρά, Ο adding "Έλλησιν after απασιν, Avhich is noticed as a variant 
also in FQ. It is manifest that none of these readings suits the papyrus, for only six or 
seven letters are required between tovto[is and βρψ. και πα\σιν or απα\σιν might be read, 
or we may suppose that the scribe was led by the homoioteleuton of τούτοις and oKKois to 
write simply τούτοι? απα\σιν. The entry at the bottom of the column (probably by a second 
hand), where O's variant Έ^Ί^ησι is followed by ανω (cf. e.g. 223. 126), evidently refers to 
this passage; but how much, if anything, stood before Έ^^Χησι cannot of course be 
determined. In 1. 23 1. ταραχή. 

701. Demosthenes, Contra Timocj'atem. 
15-7 X 14-6 cm. 

Parts of three rather short and narrov^r columns (about 16 χ 5 cm.), covering 
pp. 720-1 of Demosthenes' speech against Timocrates. Of the first and third 
columns only a few letters remain, but the lov^er portion of the intervening one 
is complete. The text, which is written in handsome round uncials (cf ββΐ, 
Plate v), probably of the end of the second century or of the first half of the 
third, seems, so far as can be judged, to be a fairly good one. 

Col. i. 

[8ξκα €is TO δ]ικαστη 

[ρίον τριακον]θ η 
[μβρων αφ η 9 oi^y 

Col. ii. 

5 77 α7Γθτ[[€]]ίσα[ί ^αν 

δί αργνριο[ν τιμή 
θηί δξδίσθω Τ€ 
ωί αν ζκτισηι ο TL 
αν αυτού καταγνω 

15 ^OLV δζ αργυρίου τι 

μηθηι δίδ^σθω 

τεω? αν ΐκτ^ξ^ισηΐ' 


ΤΓ^παυσο εστίν 

ονν όπως €vav 

I ο σθηι ακουξΤ€ ω 


avSpes δίκασται Xe 

γ€ avTOLS αυτό του 
το τταλιν 


2ο τιωτ€ρα tis Svo 
θίΐη του SeSeadat 
Τ€ω9 αν €κτ[[€]]£σω 
σιν Tovs αΧονταί 

Col. ίίί. 

i[vavTLa αυτός 
25 α[υτω νομοθ^τζίν 
7][ξιωσ€ν ουδ€ τοΐ9 
a[X\ois των νο 
μ[ων ΐωντων €μοι 
ix[€v γαρ nveKa αν 
3© a[t5eiay ο τοιου 

t[os SoK€t τταν 
α[ν €τοιμω9 ep 
γ[ον ποιησαι ωσπβρ 
το[ινυν ω avSpes 
35 Λ[θηναιοι των ne 
ρι [ταλλα 

3- The length of the line indicates that (vtos was omitted before τριακον]θ, as in A ; so 

7. Tews: SO Bl. with B; re (ως SA. Cf. 11. 17 and 22, where S has τεώ$•, A re ewr as 

5. For the deletion of the e of αποτ€ΐσα[ι cf. 11. 17 and 22, and 1. 8, where €κτισηί is 
written. -τ(ΐ,σ- Bl, in all these passages. 

19. au is similarly omitted before evavrKurepa in A. evavriarfp' av Bl., following a con- 
jecture of Weil. 

24-33. The vestiges of the initial letters here are with two or three exceptions too 
slight for certain recognition, and the arrangement of the lines is therefore insecure. a[ and 
μ[ in 11. 27-8 are not very satisfactory, more especially the latter, in place of which α or λ 
would be more suitable. A greater difficulty however arises in 1. 32, where the traces 
would suit v[ much better than a[. But the division πα\ν is extremely improbable, especially 
as 1. 31 is a short one ; moreover the papyrus is rather rubbed, and a can therefore hardly 
be absolutely excluded, though very doubtful. 

702. Demosthenes, Contra Boeotum. 

13-5 X 6-5 ^»«• 

A small fragment from Demosthenes' oration against Boeotus, pp. 1023-4, 
written in good-sized uncials which on the whole approximate to the square 



type, though € and C have a tendency to become narrow, and which we should 
ascribe to the second century, and perhaps the earlier part of it. The text has 
no variants of importance. 

θη και [rjaira λ€γ[ω 

ζ κ τούτων των μ[αρ 

τυρίω[ν] ζΐσίσθβ 



5 τοσαυτα τοινυν [e 

μου ζ^\α\ττουμζν\ου 

φαν€ρω9 οντοσι [ 

νυν σγ[€]τλιαζων [και 

η. οντοσι : so MSS. ; otros Bl(ass). 

8. νυν : so Bl. with S, &c. ; vwi FQ. 

9. τη[ν : so FQ ; κάΙ τψ Bl. with S, &c. 

10. μου: so r; μι Bl. with S, &c. 

βξίνοπαθων τη[ν 
ΙΟ προίκα μου τη9 μ[η 
τροί αποσΓ€ρησζ[ι 

αλλ νμζΐ9 ω αν[δρ€9 
δικασ[τα]ί προ[9 Αιο9 
κα[ι θ€ω]ν μη κ^^ατα 
15 [ττλαγητβ] νπο τΓτ;? 

ρ. 1024 

703. Aeschines, In Ctesiphontem. 

^>(.() cm. 

This small fragment, containing parts of §§ 94 and 96 of Aeschines' speech 
against Ctesiphon, belongs to what must have been an exceptionally interesting 
text, for in spite of its insignificant size it has three new readings, all of which 
are or may be improvements. The handwriting is in oval sloping uncial of the 
usual third century type. High stops and a paragraphus occur. 

Col. i. 

Col. ii. 


10 [αλλο]ι;[9] τ[ω\ν [Ε'^\ην[ων 
ovs βονλΐσθαι [κ]οινων[€ΐν 
της avvTa^ems' ωστ[€ 
cure )(ρηματων οι/ίτ€ 
στρατιωτ[ω]ν απορια[ν 

15 €σ€σθαΐ' και ταντα μ€ν 

δη τα φαν€ρα' ζψη δ[<ί 


Ωρ€0]ν [σνν] 
[ra^eis και ray] e^ Ερ^τρι 
[as τα δξκα ταλ]αντα ζων 
[των 1 

και n[pa^€is πραττ€ΐν 
erepa[y δι απορρήτων 
και το[ντων civai τίνα? 
2ο μαρτ[νρα9 

2 lines lost 

8. ίωιΊ[τωι;: the MSS. have όρωντων φρονονντων βλΐπόντων. Whether the papyrus 
inserted ζωντωρ before όρώντων or had ζώντων in place of one of the other three verbs 
(probably όρώντων) cannot be determined, ζώντων makes a more forcible prelude than 
όρώντων to φρονονντων βΚΐπόντων. 

14-5• ο.7Γορια[ν\ (σ(σθαι: ?σ(σθαι άπορίαν Β\. mth MSS. The papyrus reading avoids 
a hiatus. 

1 6. δη: om. MSS., Bl. The insertion of δή is an improvement. 

704. I SOCRATES, Contra Sophistas. 

7-9 X 10-3 cm. 

Parts of two columns containing portions of §§ 16-18 of Isocrates' oration 
(xiii) against the sophists, written in sloping oval uncials of the usual third 
century type. The text contains no striking variants. 

Col. i. 

Col. ii. 

\ττροίΚζ.σβ\αι και 
[μιξασθαι npos αλ] 
[AjyXay] και ταξα 
[σ0]αί κατά τρόπον 
5 eri 8e των καιρών 
μη διαμαρτ€ΐν αλ 
[λα] και τοΐ9 €νΘνμ[η 
μασ[ι π]ρ€ποντω5 
ολο[ν] τον λογον κα 
ΙΟ τα[π]ο[ι]κ€ΐλαι κα[ι 
τρΐ9 ονομασιν ev 

§ 16 

των Β\ιδακτων 
παραλ[ιπ€ΐν π^ρι 
5e των λ[οιπων 
τοιοντο[ν αντον 
20 παραδ€ΐ[γμα πάρα 
σ)^€ΐν ωστ[6 rovy 
€κτνπωθ[€ντα9 και 
μιμησζ[σθαι 8ν 

§ ι8 



ρνΘμω9 κ[αί μ]ονσι νηθ€ντα[9 evOvi 

[κ]ω9 €ί7Γ€ΐν ταύτα § 17 25 ανθηρ[οτ€ρον τι ? 

8e τΓολληί €7Γί/ί€ και )([αρΐ€στ€ροι/ 

15 [λ€ία]9 [δ€ΐσ]θαι και τω[ν άλλων φαι 

2. [μιξασθαι: SO ΓΔ (first hand) Εθ ; ΒΙ. follows Plan, and Δ (corr.) in reading μίξαι, 
which is too short to suit the papyrus. Cf. the next note. 

3-4. ταξα[σθ]αί : SO ΓΔΕΘ ; τάξαι Bl. 

23. μιμησί[σθαι: μιμησασθαι Bl. with ΓΔΕΘ ; μιμύσθαι vulgo. The papyrus reading is 

an error for μιμησασθαι. 

δν]νηθεντα[! : SO in the Antidosis of Ε and vulgo ; δυνάμενου: Bl. with all the best MSS. 
25. ανθηρυτ€ρυν by itself is not sufficient to fill up this line ; re or n, which is not found 
in the MSS., may be inserted. 




705. Two Petitions to the Emperors with Replies. 

2Ι•2 X46 cm. A.D. 200-2. 

A generous effort to lighten some of the burdens which weighed upon the 
unfortunate Egyptians in the Roman period is recorded in these copies of two 
petitions to Septimius Severus and Caracalla, to which the Emperors' replies 
are, as usual, prefixed instead of being appended. The document, which is 
written in a rude uncial hand on the verso of 740, contained four columns, but 
of these the first and last are too incomplete to have any value. A mention of 
the praefect Laetus in 1. 40 fixes the date within the years 200-2. 

The writer of both petitions is Aurelius Horion, who had held high offices 
at Alexandria and was a rich landowner in the Oxyrhynchite nome ; his object 

705. OFFICIAL 163 

in both cases was to secure the Imperial guarantee that certain benefactions 
which he proposed to found in that district would be permanently maintained. 
In the first petition (11. 15-53) it is Oxyrhynchus itself which is to be the 
recipient of his favour, and the earlier part of the letter, as far as 1. 42, is 
devoted to an interesting sketch of the claims which that city possessed upon 
the Imperial consideration. After the lengthy introduction (11. 15-21), which 
can be restored on the analogy of 11. 65-8, and nine mutilated lines, Aurelius 
Horion reminds the Emperors (11. 31-5) of ' the loyalty, fidelity, and friendship 
towards the Romans which the Oxyrhynchites had displayed both by helping 
them in the war against the Jews, and continuing up to the present to celebrate 
the day of victory by an annual festival' This war refers to some Jewish 
rising in Egypt which perhaps took place not long before the date of the 
letter, like the Jewish rebellion in the reign of Hadrian mentioned in B. G. U. 
889 ; but it would seem from the use of the word -πόλζμο^ to have been on 
a larger scale than the revolt in Hadrian's time. Aurelius Horion's next 
argument (11. 36-9) is ' Moreover, you yourselves honoured the Oxyrhynchites 
when you visited the country, by allowing them to enter your judgement-seat 
first after the Pelusiots.' This well illustrates the importance which Oxyrhynchus 
had attained by A. D. 200, when it was one of the chief towns in Egypt, and 
already ranked above Memphis. Thirdly (11. 39-42), Aurelius Horion appeals 
to the opinion of the city held by the praefect, Laetus, who will, he says, bear 
evidence in its favour. After these preliminaries the writer comes to his scheme 
(11. 42-51). Owing to the imperfect condition of 11. 42-6 the details are not 
quite clear, but apparently Aurelius Horion proposed to devote, nominally in 
the form of a loan^ a large sum of money which was to be invested, and of 
which the interest was to be expended upon maintaining the annual contests 
of ephebi at Oxyrhynchus upon the same scale of splendour as that of similar 
contests elsewhere, perhaps at Antinoe (cf 1. 50, note). The petition concludes 
(11. 51-3) with the request that the Emperors will give orders forbidding the 
diversion of the benefaction to any other purpose than that intended by its 
founder. The answer of the Emperors (11. 1-14) is for the most part lost, but 
that it was of a favourable character is made certain by direct references to 
it in their answer to the second petition (cf 1. 59 fo^ ταύτης ^ 61 τ[ό] ομοιον δ?) κοΧ 
«[ttJi τούτου φυλαχθησ^ταή. It is pleasing to know that Oxyrhynchus enjoyed the 
fruits of Aurelius Horion's generosity for more than a century ; for in βΟ, 
written in A. D. 323, we find the logistes, unmindful of the clash of empires, 
quietly issuing a notice that the gymnastic display by the ephebi will take 
place on the following day. 

The second petition (11. 65-90) is practically complete, so far as it goes, and 

Μ 2 



deals with a plan for benefiting certain villages in the Oxyrhynchite nome, the 
inhabitants of which had been so exhausted by the annual Κατονργίαι in the form 
of contributions to the State and compulsory obligations to act as guards that 
there was a prospect of the land being deserted. Aurelius Horion therefore 
proposed to present each village with a sum of money to be invested in hay, 
the yearly revenue being devoted to the assistance of the inhabitants on whom 
the λίΐτονργίαι fell. To this the Emperors reply (11. 54-63), signifying their 
approval of this scheme as of the former one, and guaranteeing the continuance 
of the benefaction. 

Col. i. 
[Αυτοκράτωρ Καίσαρ Aovkios ^]€πτίμ[ί]ο[ς 
Xiovrjpo^ Εύσ€βη9 ΤΙξρτίνα^ Χγβαστοζ 
'Αραβικός Άδιαβηνικο? Πα]ρ[θίκ]ος 
Μίγ ιστός καΐ Αύτ]οκράτωρ Κ[αΐ]σαρ 
Μάρκος Αυρήλιος Άι/]τωνΐνος Εύ[σ]€βης 
^(βαστος ] 

Αύρηλίω 'ί2ρζίω]νι γαίρ^ιν. 

ι5 letters ] . ηχα[ ] cTreSo- 

13 „ τώ]ν Ό^υρυγ)(^βιτωγ [.]οσ- 
ΐο Ι ΐ6 „ ]ayTifia ... ay • [.]ν 

ι6 „ ]α.".'[.]6τ....[.]λ[. .] 

15 „ ]μα^ €ί? ΐ[ Ι" 

15 „ ]τιασι . [ ]υ 

15 J, ] • €στιν [δ€ ή ά]ξί[ωσις' 

15 [τοις ζύμξνβστάτοις Αύτ]οκράτορσιγ [Χγο[υή]ρω 
και Αντωνινω τοις] πάΐ'[τ]ων [ά]νΘρώπων 
σωτηρσι και €ύ6ρ]γ€ταις Αυρήλιος 
Ίΐρζίων γ€ν6μ€]νος στρατηγός και άρ-^ι- 
δικαστης της λαμ]προτάτης π6λ[€]ως των 
2θ \Αλ€ξανδρίων] yaipeiv. 

... CO φιλανβρ(ΰπ\6τατοι Αυτοκράτορας 
14 letters ] . ι τ[^ TrojAei μξγάλτ/ 

14 „ ]€V€i και ίτι [σ]ωζούστι 

13 „ ] ' ['^^^Υ κατ[ο]ικισ€ν . . ν 

25 [ 15 » IpT'Ufriri ]?■ 


1 5 letters 


15 r 


14 „ 

705. OFFICIAL 165 

] . €Ι'ωΤ€[ '\V€ 

]v8e\ . . . [ ].v 

]8ov\ [.] . ^[ IfM . y 

Col. ii. 

a[ joi/ Kat αλ[. .]σ'α/χ[. . .]λοΰΐ/[. . . .] 

30 ... [.] 7r[X]eta) ων 6 [λ]όγο? e/^e τ[. . . X\av6<i[v^i,\ 

π/)[όσe]στ[i] 5e avToh καΙ ή ττρδ? ^ Ρωμαίους ^ϋγ[οί- 

ά Τ€ και πΓστί? καΐ φιλία ήν kveSd^avTO κα\1 

κατά τον προί EiovSaiovs πόλ^μον σνμμαχή- 

aavT€S και en και νυν την των Ιττιν^ικίων 
35 ημίραν έκαστου ^τονζ πανηγυρίζοντας. 

€τ€ΐμήσατ€ μ\ν ονν και ύ/ιεΓί αυτούς έπιδη- 

μησ[αν]τ€ς τω €θν€ΐ πρώτοις μ€τα Πηλον- 

σιώτας μςταδάνταζ της €ίς το δ[ικ]αστήριο[ν ύμώ]ν 

€ΐσόδου, γνωρίζει δ\ την πο\[ιν] και ό \αμπ[ρότα- 
4θ τος Ααΐτος ίπί τ€ τοις καλλίσ[το]ις και €λ^υθ€ρω- 

τάτους αχούσαν τους ίνοικο[ΰν]τ[ας κα]ι π[ 

μ€ΐο[.] ίπΐ€ΐΚ€στοίτους. διαδ[ 13 letters 

την πολίν ήθίλησα μη8€[ 13 ,> 

τω[ν] ήμ€Τ€ρων καταλιπ€[ 13 „ 

45 '^9ν[•]4ί^''Ί^ '^^'- '''^^^ ύπυσμ[ 13» 

ουκ [e]X[a]TTOv 'Αττικών μυρι[. . . .]/ των[ 

τας δανύζξ,σθαί re καΐ <ρυ\[άσσϊ\σ6αι καθα eir[i 

των προτέρων ωρισται, το[ν δϊ\ σ[υ]ναγ6μ€νον 

τ[ο\κον χωρξΐν €ίς 'έπαθλα έφηβων των παρ αύ- 
5θ ''■[ο]^^] '^'^τ* ^'"oy άγωνιουμένων έφ οις κα[ι] οι Αν- 

τ[ι]ν[οΐς ?] νυν άγωνίζοντ€. καΐ άξιω Κζλζϋ\σαι ύ]μάς 

κα[ι τ]αΰ7[α] τα χρήματα μη8^νΙ έ^ίΐν[α\ ξ'ις άλ- 

λ[ο μηδ\ν] π€[ρ\ισπαν» 

32. η-ίστ of πιστίΓ COrr. 35• 1• Traw/yupt'Corrcr. 3^• \' μ^^α^όντίς. 4°• 1• «^f[v- 

θΐρωγάτοΐί. ^1. uffai* of «χονσαι» above Jras erased. 45. νπ- Pap. 51. \. ayaviiovrai. 


Col. iii. 
Αυτοκράτωρ Καίσαρ Λ[6\ύκιο^ [Χγπτίμ[ιο^ ^]e[ov]ripos 

55 Εύσφ[η\^ UepTiva^ ^^βαστο? 'Αραβικού Ά8ίαβηνικο9 

Παρθικού Μ€γίσ[το]υ [κ]αι Αυτοκράτωρ Καίσαρ 
Μάρκο[9] Αυρήλιου Άντωνΐνο^ Ενσββης Χφαστο^ 
ΑύρηΧίω Ώρ€ίωι/ι χαίρξίν. 

άποδζχομζθα σζ και ταύτης τή9 εττίδόσεω? ηu 

6ο άξιοι? kiriSovvai ταΐ? κώμαι? των Όξνρνγχβιτών 

άποδιδούς αμοιβή ν ^νκτήσ^ω?. τ[ο\ ομοιον δη και 
€[π]ι τούτον φνΧαγθήσ^ται και καθ6τ[ι ή]θ€λησα? άμ€- 
τάστρβπτον eis eTcpov τι δαπανήσ[ζσ]θαι jfju γάριν. 
€στιν 0€ 17 αξιωσΐ9' 

65 τοΓί €ύμ€ν€στάτοΐ9 Αύτοκράτ[ο]ρσι ΐ!€[ουήρ]ω και Άντωνίνω 

τοις πάντων ανθρώπων σωτηρσιν [κ]αι €ν€ργ€ταΐ9 

Αυρήλιος ^Ωρβίων γξνόμζνο? στρατη[γ]ο9 καΐ άρχιδικασ- 

της Trjs λαμ[π]ροτάτη9 πόλεως των Αλβζανδρζων yaipuv. 
κωμαί τινίί του Όξυρυγχ^βίτου νομοΰ, ω φιλανθ ρωπότα- 

7ο τοι Αυτοκράτορας, kv ah εγώ re (^καϊ) οί υιοί μου χωρία Κ€κτήμ€- 

θα σφ[6]δρα ίξησθάνησαν ίνοχλούμαναι ύπο των κατ eTOS 
λξίτουργιων του τ€ ταμβίου και της παρα[φ]υ[λ]ακής των 
τόπων, κινδυνξύουσί re τω μ\ν ταμαίω παραπολί- 
σθαι την δ\ ύματβραν γήν άγαώργητον καταλιπαΐν. 

75 ^y^ [ο]νν και του φιλάνθρωπου καΐ του χρησίμου στοχα- 

ζ\6μ€\νος βούλομαι els άνάκτησιν αυτών ίπίδοσίν 
τ[ινα] βραχαΐαν έκάσττ) ποιήσασθαι ety συνωνην 
)([opr]ou ου ή πρόσοδος κατατβθήσξται eh τροφας και 
δ[απά]να9 των κατ €τος λζίτουργησόντων ίπϊ τω 

55• Ι σφαστος inserted later, tos being above the line. 1. Αραβικός, s of αΒιαβψικος 
corr. from υ. 56. 1. Παρθικοί Μ€γισ[το]ς. 57• Final s οί €νσ(βηί inserted above the 

line. 70. itoi Pap. 74• 1• w^fipavlj). 

Col. iv. 
(80) lost, (81). [, (82) λ[, (83) r[, (84) τα[, (85) βο.[, (86) e7r[, (87) ναι .[, 
(88) μητ[, (89) τοχ[, (90) φ..[ 

705. OFFICIAL 167 

8. The first word probably was or corresponded to άπο^ίχόμΐθα ; cf. 1. 59. 
20. The position of xaipeiv after, instead of before, the nominative (cf. 1. 68), is 

42. Perhaps δίά δ[€ ταντα. 

46. ουκ ΤΚαττον Αττικών μυρίων would refer to the sum which Aurelius Horion proposed 
to spend, but ii ταλάντων is supplied at the end of 1. 45 (it cannot come in 1. 46) the amount 
seems enormous. Possibly Αττικών is masculine and should be separated from μυρι[. 

47. 8αν€ίζ€σθαι : the benefaction apparently took the form of a loan to the city, but 
since the interest was devoted to public purposes, it was to all intents a gift ; cf the similar 
case in II. 76-8. 

50. 'Ai'r[t]i'[ois] νϋν is very doubtful, though a proper name would be expected. The 
V at the end of 1. 50 is fairly certain, the only alternative being yo, but the second ν could 
equally well be t. For vw, (ων can be read. 

54-79. 'The Emperor Caesar Lucius Septimius Severus Pius Pertinax Augustus 
Arabicus Adiabenicus Parthicus Maximus and the Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius 
Antoninus Pius Augustus to Aurelius Horion, greeting. We approve of this benefaction 
also which you request leave to confer upon the villages of the Oxyrhynchite nome, giving 
(to different persons) a succession in the enjoyment of it(?). The same rule shall be 
observed in this case also, and, as you wish, no change shall be introduced which would 
divert the gift to any other purpose. 

' The request is as follows : — 

' To the most gracious Emperors, Severus and Antoninus, the saviours and benefactors 
of the world, Aurelius Horion, formerly strategus and archidicastes of the most illustrious 
city of Alexandria, greeting. Certain villages in the Oxyrhynchite nome, most humane 
Emperors, in which both I and my sons own estates, are utterly exhausted by the burden- 
some demands of the annual XeiTovpyiai required both for the Treasury and the protection 
of the districts, and there is a danger of their being ruined as far as the Treasury is 
concerned and leaving our(?) land uncultivated. Accordingly having before me a both 
humane and useful object I wish, in order that they may recover, to make a trifling 
benefaction to each one for the purchase of hay, the revenue of which shall be devoted to 
the maintenance and support of those who are annually subject to the XuTovpyiai on condition 
that ' 

61. άμοφην ίνκτησ(ως no doubt refers to something which was explained more fully in 
11. 80 sqq., and owing to the loss of these the meaning is uncertain. We have supposed 
the sense to be that the inhabitants Avould enjoy the fruit of the benefaction successively as 
they were called upon to undertake the λίΐτονργίαι. 

62-3. άμΐτάστρίπτον els hepov κ.τΧ.: two ideas Seem to be confused, (1) the gift is to 
be άμ€τάστρΐπτον, (2) it is forbidden (sc. ^17 ΐξ(σται) to spend it on other purposes. 

74. νμ^τίραν may be right, referring to βασιλική or ονσιηκη γή ; but since the scribe is 
not very accurate, and Aurelius Horion has mentioned his own land in 1. 70, the correction 
ημ(Τ€ραν is more probable. 

77. its σννωνην χ[όρτ]ον : cf. 507. 24. The details of the scheme are somewhat 
obscure, but it is clear that the benefaction would extend over a series of years, and unless 
the emSoais was an annual present (in which case the necessity for having an Imperial 
guarantee for its continuance seems pointless), it must have been a capital sum of money 
which produced a yearly revenue ; cf. the first petition, especially 11. 48-9• Apparently 
the revenue of the «πίδοσί? was to be assigned to the different villages, i.e. placed in charge 



of the chief men, and invested in hay, the profits from the sale of which were to be assigned 
to the persons who in any year were burdened with λατονργίαι. Why Aurelius Horion 
selected this particular form for his benefaction we cannot say; but 507 suggests that 
good profits were to be made out of hay, presumably by buying it cheap and selling it dear. 

706. Report of Legal Proceedings. 

ι6•6 X IO-8 cm. 

About A.D. 115. 

Conclusion of a report of a case tried before M. Rutilius Lupus, praefect 
in A.D. 1 14-7. The litigants were Damarion, apparently a freedman, and his 
patron Heraclides ; but owing to the mutilation of the papyrus the precise 
nature of the question at issue is not clear. Damarion asserted that Heraclides 
had accepted from him a sum of money in settlement of all claims, but the 
praefect nevertheless gave an entirely adverse judgement, and threatened to 
have him beaten if further complaints were made. The most interesting point 
is the opposition between the native Egyptian law and the άσηκυϊ νόμοι, i. e. 
the law of Alexandria, which conferred certain powers upon the patrons of 
liberated slaves in relation to the slaves so liberated, and upon which the 
decision of the praefect is based. No doubt Heraclides was an Alexandrian 


11 letters ] παρ Αίγνπηοι[9 1 8 letters 

Tovs άπ€λ€υθ]€ρονς τοΐς πάτρωσι, τον Se *Ηρα[κ]λξί8ην 

άπ€ίλη]ψζναι, παρ' αύτον άργνριον και γ€γραη 

φίναι )(€ΐρ6γρ]αφον περί τον μη8\ν 'ί^€ΐν πράγμα 
προς αυτόν, κα]ί άναγνοντος το ^ξίρόγραφον Λονπο9 
βονλ€νσάμξνο]9 μ^τα των φίλων άπβφήνατο ούτως' 
kv μϊν τοις των] Αιγυπτίων νόμοις ovSev π€ρι τήί 

14 letters ]rjs (^ουσίας των άπ^λ^υθ^ρωσάντων 

15 „ ] ά[κο^ούθως τοις άστικοΐς νομοις 

12 „ Δαμαρί]ωνα 'HpaKXeiSrj τω πάτρωνι 

ΙΟ „ κ\ατα τον ν6μον\ και τω Δαμαρίωνι ζΐπ^ν 

II „ ]ρυ και προστίθημι ίάν σε μύμψηται 

9 » ζυ]\οκοπηθηναί σ€ κ^λ^νσω'. 

70r. OFFICIAL 169 

6. βου\€υσάμ(νο]: κ.τΧ: cf. e.g. P. Catt. iv. 12, 19, and P. Goodsp. 29. iii. i, where 
read Αιβ(ράλ[ις (?) λαλι^σα?. 

9. To'is άστικο'ις νόμοις : cf. the common use of αστός and άστη to designate citizens of 
Alexandria, e.g. 271. 3, 477. 14. That Alexandrians enjoyed certain privileges, especially 
with regard to taxation, is well-known, but the present seems to be the first direct reference 
to a peculiar code of law. Lumbroso had indeed already inferred {ΐ Egitto, p. 65) from the 
distinction drawn between citizens of Alexandria and others in the matter of corporal 
punishment (Philo, in Flac. c. 10) that there were also differences of law and procedure; 
and this view now finds ample confirmation. Cf. the contrast in the Ptolemaic period 
between the τ:οΚίτικο\ νόμοι (i.e. laws particularly affecting the Greeks, P. Tebt. 1. p. 58) and 
the της χωράς νόμος in P. Taur. I. iv. 1 7 and vii. 9. 

1 3. ^υ\λοκοπηθηναι : cf 653 €av μη ποιήστις ov μόνον κατακριθησ€ΐ αλλά και 8αρησ[€ΐ, Perhaps 

Ήρακ\€ί8ης is to be supplied at the beginning of the line, though this would place Damarion 
entirely at his opponent's mercy. 

707. Report of Legal Proceedings. 

26x^i-Scm. About A.D. 136. 

What remains of this account of a trial before some magistrate— the 
particular court is not specified — consists chiefly of the opening speech of the 
counsel for the plaintiff Plutarchus. The prime cause of the dispute was the 
failure of one of the defendants, Philinus, to fulfil the terms of a contract, a copy 
of which is prefixed (Col. i), made by him with a woman named Demetria for 
the lease of a vineyard and orchard. Philinus had undertaken to carry out 
certain improvements, in consideration of which he had received from Demetria 
a sum of 2000 drachmae. The promised improvements, however, were not 
effected ; and the obligations of Philinus were subsequently taken over by his 
brother Antistius. At the expiration of the term of the lease the land seems 
to have been let to a new tenant, the plaintiff Plutarchus (cf. note on 11. 15-7) ; 
but the 'papyrus breaks off before the relation of the latter to the two brothers 
or the occasion of the present dispute are elucidated. 

This document is on the verso of the papyrus. The recto is occupied with 
three columns of a survey of different pieces of land, written probably early in 
the second century. Mention is made of \}ηλ{οΙ) τόττ{οι) iv ol[s] κίλλαι (μτ,{οίον- 
μ(ναί ?) υπό των Ιουδαίων and of το7γ(οι) UpariKoL 

Col. ί. 

]y δημοσίων και 


]π[ ν]π\ρ φόρου οΐνου 

έ]ξα€τία9 έκτακτα 
5 ]ούν επί την α[ν]την i^aertav 8ημο- 

σίων ]? Tfj αύττ} ί^αξτία ίττάνα-γκον 8\ €ω9 

οίκοδομή]σω τρο'^ν ίκ καινή? των ίπάνω μ€- 
ρων ]τ} πάρα r^y Αημητρία? [βραγ^μα?) 'Β αφ ων €iaiv 

] Αη μητριάς ζ(ν{γ ) β βοών {8ραχμ ) νξ καΐ καταθη- 
ιο ]ν πάντα σύμφυτα καΐ '4μφορα καΐ ακολ(ουθ ) 

]κ . [. , . ']ιθ'αν και ίύδοκώ. χρ[Κ^°^)] ° αύ(τ6$)' 

Col. ϋ. 

[ίΤλουταρχοί προ]ς Φιλΐν[ο]ν και Άνθίστιον άμφοτίροι^ς 

[ άπο '0^υρνγ•χων π]6λ[€ω]9. Χαραπίων ρήτωρ ύπϊρ 

[ΤΙλουτάργου (ΐπίν ό συνηγορούμ]€νο9 Πλούταργο? ίμισθώ- 

15 [σατο πάρα Αη μητριάς τίνα π]€ρι τον Όξυρυγχ^ζίτην νπαρξιν 
[ 21 letters ]η Αη μητριά προπ^ποίηται τοις 

[ ι6 „ μισΘ\ώσζως\ ο γξότζρος των άντιτ€τ[α]γμ€- 

[νων Φιλ€Ϊνο]ς μισθωσάμ^νος πάρα αυτής άπο του ιδ (βτους) 
*Αδρια[νοΰ Καίσ]αρος του κυρίου €ΐς ίτη e^ άμπζλώνα και πω- 

2θ μάρ[ιον π€ρι κώ]μην Χ^ρϋφιν κατ €νγραπτον μίσθωσιν δι ης 
δ€δήλω[τ]αί kv μ\ν τη πρώτη Τ€τρα€τια μηδ\ν ύπ\ρ φόρου 
τβλίσαι άλλα μόνα [τ]α δημόσια διαγράψαι εττί τω πάσαν 
την ίν τω κτ[ή]ματι διάψξίλον γήν άνάξαι άμπίλω τη 
δζ λοιπή δΐ€τία τίλίσαι τα δια τής μισθώσεως ύπ\ρ φό- 

25 ρου ανειλημμένα άνασ\τη\σαί τ€ τας του κτήματος 
και πωμαρίου πλάτας ίπι μύτροις και λαμβάνοντα 
παρά τής Αημητρίας [δραγ^μάς) 'Β άνοικοδομήσαι τροχον ίκ και- 
νής k^ σ^πτής^ πλίνθου ίπι μίτροις ώρισμίνοις. δν- 
π€ρ λαβόντα τάς [δρα^^μάς) 'Β τον μ\ν τροχον μή πεποιηκίναι 

3θ επί τοις δ[η'^^ωθ€Ϊσι μ^τροις άλλα άσυντίλεστον κατά- 
λίλοιπίναι του re κ[τ]ήματος τίλειον ήμίληκεναι 
και μηδΐ τάς πλάτας πίριβζβληκίναι. τούτων οΰτως 
ίχ^όντων τω ιΘ {eTei) 'Αδριανού Καίσαρος του κυρίου ίνγυητης 

1/ απ\ 

707. OFFICIAL 171 

yuv^rai του άδΐλφοΰ Φιλύνου [A]v6eaTL0S πάντων των 
35 δίά TTJs μ[ι]σθώσζ[ωs] άν€ίλημ[μ€]νων καΐ €σχ€ avTos τα σνν- 

γξγραμμβνα α[. ...].. ν . αλ[. . .] γη μη άναχθζΐσα άμπίλω 

άχρι τούτον δ[ 13 letters ]ημ . . as Se U του ίποικίου 

καΐ έτ€[ρ ΐ6 „ ό] άντιτ^ταγμίνο? και . . [. . 

ουκολ[ Ι Η „ ]ατο9 καΐ 3ραχμα[9 

4θ Koaia[s 16 „ μ]€νας υπό tivos ye[ 

Δημη[τρία Ι5 » ]«?■[• ' ' 

αύτον τ[ ι? » 1 • ^^[ 

λωσ . [ 

τω κ {iTei) [ 

9. κα of κατά written above πα. 17. 1. vearepos. μ of amTfrfajy/if COrr. from λ ? 

2 2. αι of τίλίσαί written above j/. 27. In the left margin against this line is an obhque 

dash. 36. a of αλ[ corr. and λ above the line over a deleted letter. 

Col. ii. ' Plutarchus son of . . . against Philinus and Antistius, both sons of . . ., of 
Oxyrhynchus. Sarapion, advocate for Plutarchus, said :— My client Plutarchus leased from 
Demetria a property in the Oxyrhynchite nome following upon (?) a lease previously made 
with Demetria by Philinus, the younger of our opponents, who rented from her for 6 years 
from the 14th year of Hadrianus Caesar the lord a vineyard and orchard at the village of 
Seruphis in accordance with a written agreement, in which it was stated that in the first 
four years he should be charged no rent but only pay the taxes on condition of his planting 
vines over the whole of the open space in the vineyard, that for the remaining two years he 
should pay the rent set forth in the lease, that he should restore on a certain scale the 
walls (?) of the vineyard and orchard, and on receiving from Demetria 2000 drachmae should 
build on a fixed scale a new wheel of baked brick. It appears that having taken the 2000 
drachmae he did not make the wheel according to the stated scale, but left it uncompleted 
and entirely neglected the vineyard, not even putting up the walls round it. In these 
circumstances in the 19th year of Hadrianus Caesar the lord Antistius became surety on 
behalf of his brother Philinus for all the obligations of the lease and himself took over . . . 

4. (κτακτα : cf. 646 ά εσται κα\ ΐκτακτον τον , . . άφηλικος. 

8-9. The value of the two pairs of βόετ, 460 drachmae, was apparently included 
in the 2000 drachmae received by Philinus from Demetria (cf. 11. 26-9), and 1. 9 is 

probably to be restored τ./χή δι/ ?χω naph τψ] ΑημητρΙα! ζίν{γων) β βοών {8ραχμα\) νξ. Cf. 

729. 39 sqq•, where jSoe? are a good deal more expensive, καταβη might perhaps be read 
τα καθή(κοντα(}), the κα being above the line. ^ 

10. σύμφυτα: cf. 729. 2 2. ί'μφορο! is Otherwise known only from Hesychius, ψφορα' 
προβφλημίνα' άγίλη προβάτων, where commentators have supposed some corruption. 

15-7. The restoration of these lines, which involve the relations of Plutarchus to 
Demetria and the brothers, is a doubtful matter. If Αημητρία is made the subject of 
προπίποίηται, the nominatives 6 veOTtpo^ . . . μίσθωσάμ^νοί, are left suspended. We are 


therefore inclined to read Αημητρία, connecting ό veatTfpos with προπατοΐψαι, and suggest 

νπαρξιν [άρουρων ^ζ ψ '"'ΐ) ο^'^]ΐί (ο^ ^^'' '"1^) Αημν'ρία προπΐποίηται rois \ΐμπροσθΐν χρόνοι! 

μισθ\<ύσ€ω[ς\ κ.τ.λ. n]ep\ τον Όξνρχ>γχ(ίτην is unusual ; iv τω Ό. would be expected. 

23. δίάψΐΐλον γην: this phrase, which here occurs for the first time, throws light 
upon two passages in the B. G. U. which have hitherto remained unexplained (cf. Wilcken, 
Os/. I. p. 404). These are entries in two very closely related taxing-lists from Socnopaei 

NeSUS, B. G. U. lO. 8 ψνγμοϋ κάΊ δια\|/•ίίλ(ου ΟΓ -ων) (αρονρών) νδ and 2 77• ^•• 5 δια•ψ•ι.γ/χάτωι» 

καΧ διαψίίλωι; ττρόϊ i\aiS>{vi) [άρονρών) v8, the heading in each case being followed by two 
or three names. The 54 arourae are evidently the same in both documents, and consisted 

of a ψνγμο! or δια\//•υ)//χατα (cf. P. Tebt. 86. 45 and 522. 4) and διάψπλα or Βιάψηλος γη, 

upon which certain payments had to be made by the persons named. How 8ιάψιλος 
differed from ψιλή γη, if at all, does not appear. The word is found in Hesychius, ψηνόί' 
yjrfSvos, διάψιΚο!, 

25. άν(ΐ\ημμίνα•. the Verb recurs in the same unusual sense in 1. 35. B. G. U. 277. 
ii. 10 ot φ('(ροι) fv ονσιακω λόγω αναλαμβάνονται is hardly parallel. 

26. πωμαρίου is of coursc the Latin poviariujn. The use of πλάτα? here is strange. 
The word ττλήταί or -πΚάτηί occurs in several inscriptions from Aphrodisias (e. g. C. I. G. 
2824 ; cf. Boeckh's remarks ad loc.) meaning apparently the substructure of a funerary 
monument. Here the -ηΧάται seem to be surrounding walls; cf. 1. 32 τ as πλάτος ntpifie- 


37. Apparently not ]ημ(νας. The supposed δ of 84 is more like a. 

708. Two Letters to a Strategu.s. 

ig-2Xg-'j cm. a.d. 188. 

The recto of this papyrus contains part of an account of corn, very large 
amounts in artabae(e.g. i68, 486 ^ J-g) being mentioned, as well as the κ]αταστΐ(ορα) 
κθ (tTovs), which refers to the reign of Commodus more probably than to that 
of Caracalla. On the verso are copies of two letters from Antonius Aelianus, 
a high official whose rank is not stated, but who was probably epistrategus 
or dioecetes, to the strategus of the Diospolite nome in the Thebaid, stating 
that two ship-loads of wheat from that nome had on examination proved to 
be adulterated with barley and earth, and ordering the strategus to exact the 
deficiency from the sitologi responsible for it. From a mention of a chiliarch in 
1. 13 it appears that the corn was required for military purposes. The first 
letter, which is practically complete, is dated in the 29th year, probably of the 
reign of Commodus. The second follows the same formula, so far as it goes. 

(Αντ]ώνΐ09 Λίλιαρο9 στρα(τηγω) Δίοπ{ολίτον) Θηβ{αίδοζ) χα{ίρ€ΐν). 
[του] κατα)(^θζμτο5 γόμου e< τοΰ ύπο σοι νομοΰ 

708. OFFICIAL i73 

[8ια .]αύσίο^ ^ιπωτος και των συν αύτω h {πυρον) {άρτάβαΐί) *Β 
5 [^^ τν] "^[^y δπγμάτων άρσ€ΐ ου καθαρού φανίντοί 
[€κ]€λ€υσα ήμιαρτάβιον κριθολογηθηναι 
[και] βωλολογηθήναι, και ^ίβη ΐλασσον 
[κρι]θη^ μ\ν ^άρτάβαι)^ ίκατοσταΐ δύο βώλον Se δμοί- 
[οΰί έ]κατοστη$ ήμισυ, toxjs \ο]υν τον πυρον [^^βα- 
ιο [Xo]/x€roi;y σιτολόγου^ πραξον τω σω κινδύνω 

[ra]y συναγο{μίνου) σίτο{υ) διαφόρω (ττυροΰ) {άρτάβαή ν {ήμισυ) δ' κα\1] τα 

[π ρο]σμ(€τ ρουμάνα) και ray dXXas δαπάνα?, καΐ προσθψ€- 

[vos] τω λόγω του χι{λιάρχου) δήλωσον μοι. {^του?) κΘ Φαω^ψι) λ. 

[ ] €Κθ{μισάμην ?) δύο, ^/ β. 

15 [αλλ]???. 'Αντώνιο? Αιλιανός στρα(τηγω) Διοπ[ολίτου) Θηβ(αίδοή χα{ίρ€ΐν). 

[του] καταγβίντο? γόμου ίκ του ύπο σοι νομ(ρΰ) δια 

[. . .]νυχου [Π]ανγορσαούιο? kv (πυροΰ) {άρτάβαιή σν 

[kv τ]τ} των δ[ζΐ]γμ[ά]των άρσπ ου καθαρ[οΰ ψανίν- 

[το]ς €Κ€λ€υσα {ήμισυ) {άρτάβηή κριθο{λογηθήναι) και βωλο[λ]ογηθ{ηναι) 
[καΐ kiiβ{η) 
20 [€λασ]σον κριθή? μ\ν ίκατοστή αδ' [βώλου δ\ όμ{οιω?) . 

[του?] οΰν τον [π]νρον ίμβαλομύνου? [σιτολ{όγου?) πραξον 

[τω σω] κινδύ{νω) [τ]α? συναγο{μ€νου) σ{ίτου) δ[ια]φ{όρω) {πυροΰ) {άρτάβα?) 
[. . και τα 

2-13- 'Antonius Aelianus to the strategus of the Diospolite nome in the Thebaid, 
greeting. Since the cargo dispatched from the nome under you in charge of [.]ausis son of 
Sipos and his companions, amounting to 2000 artabae of wheat, appeared at the weighirig 
of the samples to have been adulterated, I ordered that the amount of barley and earth m 
half an artaba of it should be ascertained, and it proved to be under measure by 2 per cent. 
of barley and likewise ^ per cent, of earth. Accordingly exact at your own risk from the 
sitologi who shipped the wheat the difference on the whole amount of the corn, 5o| artabae 
of wheat, and the extra payments and other expenses, and when you have added this total 
to the account of the chiliarch let me know. The 29th year, Phaophi 30.' 

II. Γ {ήμισυ) δ' : 2^ per cent, on 2000 artabae (1. 4) is 50 artabae, so Antonius Aelianus 
has added on f art. 

13. χι(λίάρχου) : or perhaps (δ6καδά)ρ(χου). The ι is drawn through the χ. 

14. The meaning of this line is obscure. For ίκο{μισάμην) cf. P. Petrie II. 12(1) verso. 
β might be read instead of κ, and there is a horizontal stroke above o. ίκα{τοσταί) cannot be 
read, ίπιστολάί is apparently to be supplied after 8C0. 


709. Tour of Inspection. 

14-7 X II-5 cm. About a.d. 50. 

This fragment of a letter gives some important geographical information 
about Egypt in the first century. It describes a tour of inspection throughout 
the country about to be taken by a high official, probably the praefect or 
δικαιοδο'ττ??. Starting from a place which is not mentioned (Alexandria ?), he 
was to go first to Pelusium, thence through the nomes situated along the eastern 
side of the Delta, the Tanite and Sethroite, Arabia, and another nome, not 
previously found in Greek (1. 6, note), to Memphis. Next he was to travel 
direct to the Thebaid, and come back through the Heptanomis, the Arsinoite 
nome, and the other nomes in the Delta which he had not visited on his upward 
journey, finally reaching Alexandria. The chief point of interest is the mention 
of the Heptanomis and Arsinoite nome. Wilcken {Ost. I. pp. 423-7) attributes 
the creation of the Heptanomis to the period between A. D. 68, when the edict 
of Tiberius Alexander seems to be ignorant of its existence, and 130, and 
adopts the view of Schwarz {Rkein. Mus. 1896, p. 637) that the Arsinoite nome 
originally belonged to the Heptanomis, but was separated from it by Hadrian 
to make room for the newly-founded Antinoite nome. The papyrus, however, 
which quite certainly belongs to the first century and yet mentions the Arsinoite 
nome as distinct from the Heptanomis, disposes of Schwarz's hypothesis 
altogether, and pushes back the latest possible date of the creation of the 
Heptanomis far into the first century. The handwriting of the papyrus is by 
no means of a late first century type, and we should assign it to the reign of 
Claudius or Nero rather than to that of one of the Flavian emperors. In any 
case it is now clear, on the one hand, that the Arsinoite nome was on account 
of its isolated position never reckoned in the Heptanomis, and on the other, 
that some hitherto unsuspected nome belonged to the Heptanomis before the 
creation of the Άντινοίτηζ. The most probable explanation is that Antinoite was 
a new name given to a previously existing nome, and that Hadrian only did 
what Ptolemy Philadelphus had done in the case of the λίμνη (Rev. Laws, 
p. xlix). Strabo, who is a little earlier than the papyrus, does not help ; but 
his list of nomes has not so far accorded very well with the evidence of Ptolemaic 
and Roman papyri. 

[ ]'{i9V • ['] "^^ λογιστήρι[ον 

710. OFFICIAL 175 

[5ίαλο]γίσ/χο0 ίστάθηι 'ίνα rfj [ 

[ ]ωι/ τον άνάπλονν ποιήσηταί και 

[ ] €is Πηλονσιον άΐΓίλθων διαλο- 

5 [γίσητ]αι Τανίτην ^ΐθροίτην Άραβίαν 

[Αν]ίαν, kv Μίνψξί γ€ν6μζνο9 ομοίως 

Θηβαίδαν ίπτα νομούς Άρσινοίτην, 

τους δξ λοιπούς της κάτωι χώρας ν[ομούς 

e/s 'Αλ€ξάνδρ€ΐαν. ταύτα δς. ω\ 

ΙΟ ίστάθηι e/s 5e τα λογιστήρια τίνα. 

κατ άνδρα πάντων των απ[ 

αίτον[μ]€θα. λοιπόν ουν €[ 

.[.... γ]ραμματ€Ϊς άχρι . [ 

[ ] άσποροι της δι . ωτ[ 

15 [ σ]ταλξίσας . [ 

[ ]ταδα . [ 

[ 14 

On the verso Θίωνι δ[ 

3• Second η of ποιησηται COTT. frotn α. 6. μ of μevφfl COTT. from φ. 

6. [λν]ίαν (or possibly [A]tav) was suggested by Mr. Griffith. It refers to the district 
called in hieroglyphics 'An situated on the Eastern side of the Delta (Brugsch, Bi'ci. Geogr. 
p. 119), and known to Pliny {H. N.v'x. 2g) a sinu Laeanitico (I. Aelaniiico) alter sinus quem 
Arabes Aean vacant in quo Heroon oppidum est. Brugsch considers it to have been part of 
the Memphite nome. 

710. Order for Payment. 

Fr. {a) 7x13-5 cm. b.c. hi. 

This papyrus, which is one of the few Ptolemaic documents found at 
Oxyrhynchus, contained an order, probably addressed to a royal bank by an 
official, to pay various sums of money to 47 persons. Of these 44 were carrying 
documents, and they were accompanied by a ωρογράφος, i.e. a precis-writer, 
a title not hitherto found on a papyrus, an (φοδοί who acted as escort, and 


a ' camel-man/ this being one of the rare references to the use of camels in 
the Ptolemaic period. The 7th year mentioned in 1. 5 must on palaeo- 
graphical grounds belong to the reign of Ptolemy Soter II. In Fr. [b) ωρογράφω•, 
€φόδωί or καμηλίτψ is probably to be supplied at the beginnings of 11. 7 and 8. 

(a) {b) 

[ ] •^ρημ[ά\τισ[ον το]Γ[ί ] {τάΚαντ ) [ 

kv τωι Ό^υρν/γίτηι βνβλιαφόροι? ] α {τάΧαντον) α [ 

άν8ράσι μδ ώρογράφωι α ] α (τάλαντον) α [ 

ίφόδωι α καμηλίτηί α, y/ μζ, .... 
5 τον Θωνθ του ζ (erovs) κατά 

711. Census-List. 

7 χ 1 8-5 cm. About B.C. 14. 

A fragment from an official statement or list connected with the census and 
poll-tax. There are parts of two columns, but the first has only the ends of 
lines (not printed), and the second is, unfortunately, disfigured by lacunae which 
deprive it of much of its value, though any fresh items of information may be 
welcomed on the interesting question of the Egyptian census in the early years 
of Augustus. The existing evidence on the subject was collected in P. Oxy. II. 
pp. 307-14, where it was shown that the fourteen years' census-cycle could be 
traced back with security to A.D. 19-ao, and with probability to A. D. ^-6 and 
B. c. 10-9, but no further, although censuses and poll-tax are attested still 
earlier in Augustus' reign, and now appear from the Tebtunis papyri (103, 
introd.) to go far back into the first century B. C. The present document 
mentions certain * youths ((φηβίυκότζς) registered (or ' entered ') on a poll-tax list 
by us (the λαογράφοι ?) in the 15th year of Caesar,' ίφηβ^υκότζί in this context 
probably meaning boys above the age of fourteen, when they became liable to 
the tax in question. Reference is also made to a wrong entry in a previous list 
of some persons * as having . . . before the 6th year.' This is too vague to be 
of much use ; but the 6th year (B. c. 25-4) would seem to be a recognized 
landmark in the history of the census or the poll-tax, and some important step 
in the reorganization of the system may possibly have then been made. The 

712. OFFICIAL 177 

6th year, however, does not fall in with the fourteen years' cycle, being one 
year too early. 

On the verso of the papyrus are parts of two columns, written not much 
later than the recto, of a series of names with some figures opposite, no doubt 
a taxing-list of some kind, and not improbably also concerned with the poll-tax. 

έκαστα ..[...].[ '\(if)[ 

ray όμοιων κατά, το παρόν . . . [. .]μ€Ρα . [. . .]σ[. . .]α. 

και άλλων των ύφ* ή/ιών ίπΐ τον le (βτου?) Kaiaapos λελα- 


ογραφημύνων €π[. . .]φ[. .]ων ζφηβζυκ6[τω]ν ωί 
6 καΙ €Κ ΐΓαραλογίσμ[ον . . .] . μ€νο5 ώy 7Γρ[ο τ]ον 

^ {ζτου?) Καίσαρο[ς . .]φ[. . . .]των ττ[.]ΐ3ων c[ ]ν[. .] 


2. τας may be the article and connected with the participle following παρόν, or the 
termination of a word in the previous line like reXowras. Cf. P. Tebt. 103. 1-3 λαογρ(αφία) 
. . . τ(λοΰ[ντ]ων σύνταξιν, and τ(λών (so Wilcken) σίινταξιν in P. Grenf. I. 45. 8. 

4. ]φ[ is quite doubtful, since all that remains of the letter is part of a long vertical 
stroke projecting above the lacuna, which might equally well represent e.g. the sign for 
«roi. But it does not seem possible to get either another year or a conjunction into the 
short space available, and we therefore conclude that λ€λαογραφημΐρων and εφηββνκότων are 
to be taken together, with some qualifying term between them ; eV* [άμ]φό6]<ύν might suit. 
At the end of the line ωί with ου written above the ω is difficult ; if oCs was intended the 
accusative may be governed by ] . /xeiOs in 1. 5. 

5-6. as πρ[ό τ]ού g- (Irour) : cf. similar instances of the use of πρό in 257. 25, 481. 15. 

712. Collection of a Debt. 

1 1 -5 X i0'3 cm. Late second century. 

The imperfect condition of this papyrus is much to be deplored, for if more 
complete it would probably have gone far to solve the uncertainties attaching 
to the functions of that much discussed official, the ξ€νικώυ πράκτωρ. As it is, 
the lines being throughout incomplete both at the beginnings and ends, and the 
amount lost being shown by 11. 13-3 to exceed 40 letters between each line, 
the papyrus whets our curiosity without satisfying it. There are two documents, 



the first written (11. 9 sqq.) being an application to the overseers of the ξενικών 
ττρακτορία of the Athribite nome from a member of the Sosicosmian tribe, stating 
that he had in A. D. 146-7 lent 300 drachmae at interest to two brothers, called 
Potamon and Pathermouthis, upon the security of some house-property at 
Monthmereu. Repayment not having been made at the proper time, a writ 
was served upon the brothers (11. 16-7), but since this had no effect, the applicant 
requests the overseers to foreclose upon the house and exact payment (11. i8-ai). 
In the margin above this application is (11. 1-7) a letter from the overseers to 
the keepers of the record office, apparently requesting them to take possession 
of the property and collect the debt and interest, as well as the miscellaneous 
charges for collection made by the State. The title, ^τητηρηταΐ ξενικών -ηρακτομία^, 
is new, and, since ξτιιτηρηταί are generally connected with ώναί, suggests that the 
profits made by the State from collecting debts were farmed out, like most 
other revenues. That this was actually the case is proved by 825, an account 
rendered to the μισθωτοί ξίνικων ττρακτορία^ by one of their ιτραγματ^νταί. By 
the second century therefore, at any rate, the functions which in the Ptolemaic 
period and perhaps still in the first century A. D. seem to have been combined 
in the person of the ξζνικων -πράκτωρ (of. P. Tebt. 5. 221, note, and 28β), were 
divided, and we find side by side the parallel bodies of official ^τητηρηταί and 
private μισθωταί with subordinate ττραγματ€υταί. But while 712 and 825 are 
a valuable illustration of the second term in the phrase ξενικών -πρακτορία, they 
throw little light upon the first, in which the main difficulty lies. The explana- 
tion of ξζνικων which we offered (//. cc.) that it means debts contracted by f eyot, 
i. e. persons living at places outside the district to which they properly belonged, 
still remains the only one which rests on the evidence of parallels from the use 
of ^eVo9 in papyri, though it is not clear why e. g. in P. Tebt. 5. 321 debts of 
^cVot should be a subject of legislation and not debts in general. Our hypothesis 
gains some support from the circumstance^which may be a mere accident, but 
if so is a very remarkable coincidence — that both 712 and 825 have to do with 
debts from persons who were not living in the Oxyrhynchite nome. In 712 the 
cmrijpT/rai belong to the Athribite nome, but about the property distrained upon the 
only fact that is certain is that it was not in the Oxyrhynchite nome {Μωνθμξρ^ύ 
and its toparchy, 'Νορασάτηξ, in 1. ao, are both unknown), while the nome to 
which the officials addressed by the €ΐιιτηρηταί belonged, as well as that of the 
writer of the application, is doubtful ; cf. notes on 11. i and 13. In 825 the 
■πραγματξυτηί was concerned with the Memphite nome, but that the μισθωταί 
belonged to the Oxyrhynchite nome has only a general probability resting on 
the provenance of the document. 

The date of the papyrus is lost, but it was certainly posterior to the 10th 

713. OFFICIAL 179 

year of Antoninus mentioned in 1. 13 (cf. 11. 16-8), and may be as late as the 
beginning of Commodus' reign ; cf. note on 1. 7. 

Kca ων €πίτη{ρηται) ξ€νικ(ων) 7Γρα]κτ{ορ€ία?) Άθρξ[ιβ(^ίτου)] 

βι[βλ]ιοφνλ{α^ιν) ί[γκ]τ{ήσ€ωίή [.]ατο[. .] . [ 

]ομω9 Ίταραδΐί^ζως νφ' ήγ ίστιν e . [ 

] κατάσχζτ€ οΰν npbs ίνβχυρασίαγ ήν παρ€8[ 

Παθίρμονθι? και ό άβ^λφος] αύτοϋ Ποταμών Θανώ^ιοί τον [.]ζ , ητιοί aire . [ 

5 την {ητ\άρ•)^ουσαν αύτώι καΐ τώι άδξλφω αύτοΰ UaOep- 

{μ)ούθί oiiojiav και αύλην 
] άργυ(ρίον) (βραχμας) τ και tokovs και τύλη 
και δαπ{άνα9), πρω(τοπραξία9) οΰση{9) τω 8η{μοσίω) κα[ί 
(eroi/y) . .] // Παννι κ. 
2nd hand και ω]νι ίπιτηρηταΐί ξενικών πρακτορία^ Άΰρ€[ίβιτου 

τταρα ]ωνοί τοΰ Νζοπτολβμου ^ωσικοσμ^ίου τοΰ και Ηλι[ 

ΙΟ ]ν χρη[μ]ατισμον iv€)(vpaaias ων το €Τ€ρον άν[ 

eJTTi ττράζζωί των οφζίλομίνων μο[ι v]iro Ποτά- 

μωνοΫ [Θανώχιο? του . . . ητιοί, 

και τον Ποτάμωνοί άδ]€λφον Παθ^ρμονθιοί €| άλΧηλζγγνη? κατά 

δημ6σ[ιον χρηματισμον γ€γον6τα 

Sia τον iv ηόλζΐ άρ]χ€ίον τω δίκάτω ere[i Άν]των€ίνον Καίσαρος 

το[ν κυρίου 
]ι/ον τον ϋοτ[α/ζ]ο)[ϊΌί δραχμ^βν έκατον τόκων 

15 ]••0[•]•ί^[•]•^^ ?^^!?^[^yy*^^^ αργνρίον δρα•χμ\ων 

τή? άποδ6]σ€ω^ μη γΐγοννζίη? μ€[τα]δοθ€ντο? Τ€ τον τηί 

€V€)(y\paaias άντιγράφον 
Παθ^ρμονθι και τω άδξλφω] αντον Πο[τ]άμωνι δια Είρ[η]νίωνο9 ύπηρίτου 

Tjj ιη τ[οΰ 
και δΐ€λ]θ6ντο[ί] nXeiovos χρόνου άντι των δια τοΰ ΤΓροστ[ 
κατασχζΐν npbs €ν]ΐχ[νρ]ασίαν τω ίδίω μου κινδύνω τοΰ Ποτάμωνος καταΊ[ 
2θ την ύτταρχουσαν] αύτω iv κώμτ) Μωνθμζρξν τοΰ Νορασίίτον άνω οικίαν 

κα[ι αύλην 
Ν a 


αργυρίου δραχμα? τ]ρίακοσία^ καΐ τόκους /c[a]i Te[A]77 και ττρακτορικας και 

TOis aXXa[s δαπανάς 
]ία του ο[ ] ^ουλπικίου ^ip^\]em δί[ 

Ι. [Α]ατο[πο\ίτου is possible at the end of the line. 

7. The occurrence of two dashes after the number of the regnal year and the omission 
of the Emperor's name point to a date in Commodus' reign, when both these practices 
became common. The difficulty is that the debt was contracted in a.d. 146-7; cf. 1. 13. 
The mention of Sulpicius Similis in 1. 22 recalls the praefect of that name in 237. viii. 27, 
whose date is not certain; cf, p. 262. 

13. apj^eiov: the use of this term suggests that Oxyrhynchus was not meant, since 
there άγορανομεων ov μνημονύον are the more usual terms, though an άμχΐΊον probably at 
Oxyrhynchus is found in 509. 3. 


713. Claim of Ownership. 

38-5X9f/w. A.D. 97. 

A declaration address2d to the keepers of the record office by a certain 
Leonid es, requesting the formal registration (παρά^ίσι?) of his prospective right 
to some property at present in the ownership of his mother. The claim to the 
property in question depended upon the marriage contract of the writer's 
parents, in which their joint possessions were secured [κατ^σγον) on their demise 
to their children. The father had died, and his property had been duly divided 
between Leonides and his brother and sister. The mother was still living, and 
had already made over two-thirds of her real estate to this brother and sister 
upon the marriage of the pair. Leonides, who was probably the younger son, 
therefore wished that note should be taken of this division, and that his own 
title to the remaining third of the property should be placed on record. 

The document is dated in Phamenoth of the ist year of Nerva, i.e. A.D. 97. 
It is not known that a general απογραφή of real property occurred in that year, 
while 481 shows that such a registration took place in A. D. 99. There is 
evidence that general άτιογραψαί, separated only by a two years' interval, were 
held in A.D. 129 and 131 (75, 715, B. G. U. 420, &c.}, but that these both 


affected the same nome is not yet ascertained. Pending further data It will 
therefore be best to suppose that the present was a special declaration called 
forth by the peculiar circumstances of the case. 

1st hand παρ€Τ€θ{η). 

Αημητρίωι και 'Απολλω[ν]ίωι καΐ 

AioyivH βιβλιοφν{λαξή 
2nd hand πάρα Λ€ωνί8ου Αιοδώρον τον 

5 Αωδώρου μητρός ^apaevTos Αξω- 
ν ίδον άπο Ό ζν ρυγχών ττόλίω?. 

καθ' τ^ν οΐ γον€Ϊς μου Αιόδωρος Αί[ο- 

δώρου του Άγαθ^ίνου καΐ ^apaevs 

Α^ωνίδου του ^Αλξξάνδρου μη- 
ιο Tpbs ^Ισιδώρας ΚαΚα άπ\ο\ τή? αυτή? 

πόλεωί ττ^ποίηνται ττροξ αλ- 
λήλους του γάμου συγγραφην δια 

του kv Όζυρύγχων πόλα άγορανο- 

μίον τω δωδ^κάτω '4τ€ί Beov 
15 Κλαυδίου μηνΐ ^ζβαστω κατίσ- 

χον τύ\ €ξ αλλήλων yei^ea τα 

ίαυτων πάντα προς το /ιετά τ^ν 

τζλΐυτην αντων βφαίως και 

άναφαιρ€τως eivai των τέκνων, 
2θ επεί δ\ 6 πατήρ Ιτβλβύτησ^ν Ιπ k- 

μοί και άδζλφοΐς μου Αιοδώρω 

καΐ Θαίδι και τα αντοΰ els ή μας 

κατήντησ€, ή δ€ μήτηρ αφ ων 

εχεί περί μ^ν Νίσλα άρουρων 
25 hvvia ή μίσους π€ρΙ δξ {περί 5ε} 

Π€€ννω €Κ της Θρασυμάχου παρ- 

€ΐμ€νης άρουρων δυο ήμίσονς 

των ετΓί το αντο άρουρων δζκά- 

δυο €μ€ρισ€ τοις προγ^γραμμί- 
30 νοις μου άδξλφο[ΐ]ς άπο των πε- 
ρί Νίσλα έκατίρω άρονρας τίσσα- 


pas δια τήί nepl γάμου αύτον σνγγρα- 

[φηί] αΐ da ι το τρίτον των ττροκζΐμί- 

vcov άρονρων δ^κάδυο, άπογρά- 
35 φομαι και αύτο^ npbs παράθ^σιν 

KaToyrjv των λοιπαιν τή9 μη^ 

τρο9 άρονρων τεσσάρων, η δ\ προ- 

Κίΐμίνη των γονίων μου συγγρα- 
φή kaTiv ίνθζσμο^ και άπΐρί- 
40 Xi/roy €ί? την Ινξστώσαν ήμίραν. 

{€τους) α Αύτοκρά[τ]ορο9 Ν€ρ[ού]α [Καίσαρος 

Χφαστοϋ (ist hand) Φαμ^νωθ ιΘ. 

^ΐά hand Δημήτριος σ€ση[μ€ίωμαι). ίτους πρώτου 
Αύτοκράτορος Nepova Καίσαρος 
45 ^φαστοΰ Φαμΐνωθ ιθ. 

8. Second α of aapcavs corr. 

* Inserted on the register. 

To Demetrius and ApoUonius and Diogenes, keepers of the records, from Leonides 
son of Diodorus son of Diodorus, his mother being Saraeus daughter of Leonides, of 
Oxyrhynchus. My parents, Diodorus son of Diodorus son of Agathinus, and Saraeus 
daughter of Leonides son of Alexander, her mother being Isidora daughter of Calas, of the 
said city, in accordance with the contract of marriage made between them through the 
record office of the said city in the month Sebastus of the i2th year of the deified Claudius 
settled upon their joint issue the whole of their property, in order that after their death it 
might be the secure and inalienable possession of their children ; and whereas my father 
died leaving me and my brother and sister, Diodorus and Thais, his heirs, and his property 
devolved upon us, and whereas our mother possesses at Nesla 9^ arourae and at Peenno 
2^ arourae of the concessional (?) land of Thrasymachus, together making 1 2 arourae, and 
bestowed upon my brother and sister aforesaid through their marriage contract 4 each of 
the arourae at Nesla, that is one-third of the aforesaid 12 arourae: I too declare for 
registration my right to the remaining 4 arourae of my mother ; and the aforesaid contract 
of my parents remains in force and uncancelled to the present day. The ist year of the 
Emperor Nerva Caesar Augustus, Pharmenoth 19/ Signature of Demetrius and date. 

I. παρατιθίναι and παράθ(σΐ! (cf. 1. 35 below) are specially used of the declaration and 
registration through the βφλιοφνλακα of claims to property. The verb has this technical 

sense e.g. in 237. iv. 38 ιταρατίθΐσθαι hia ToiJ βιβλιοφυλακίον and viii, 34 ιταρατιθίτωσαν be και ai 
γυναίκα rais νποστάσεσι των άν8ρων. Cf. also Β. G. U. 73. I Ο sqq. iniaTtiKas rots . . . [β]ιβ\ιο- 
φυλαζιν . . . 7Γ[οίΐ7σασ^]αι τα Trjs παραθίσίωί, and 243• 9 «ϊΐ'ίδίδω^ιι (Is το την παράθΐσιν γΐνΐσθαι, 
and 1 4 ιτροπαρακΐΊ{μ(νον') δια τον βιβ\{ιοή>νΚακίον) ^. 

^ The editor reads «<υλ(υε(ν), but this makes no sense, and the correction proposed, which is palaeo- 
graphically very close, seems in the light of the passages quoted above practically secure. The context in 
the Berlin papyrus further requires a negative like μηΗν in place of καχ τω before tceaSai ΐμπόΒιον. 



12. The marriage contract referred to contained also testamentary dispositions; cf. 
C. P. R. 28. 8 sqq. 

20. ίίτ €/iot και αδίλφοίί : SC. κληρονόμοι! ', cf. 481. 1 7~8, &C. 

26. της θρασνμάχου τταρΐψίνης '. τταριίναι as a technical term applied to land seems to be 
new, and the present passage gives no clue to the meaning ; perhaps * conceded to ' or 
' abandoned.' 

714. Selection of Boys (^πίκρισίή. 
Fr. {a) 4-2X5, Fr. (<5) 29 χ 5 cm. 

A.D. 122. 

An application addressed to a variety of officials by an Oxyrhynchite who 
enjoyed the privilege of paying a reduced poll-tax of 12 drachmae, requesting 
that a slave who had been born in his house and had reached the age of 
thirteen might be placed on the same privileged list. This papyrus thus 
confirms the evidence of 478 and B. G. U. 324, that the liability of slaves in 
respect of poll-tax was determined by that of their owners. A discussion of 
the general question of ί-ηίκρισίί is given in P. Oxy. II. pp. 217 sqq. 

This papyrus is interesting palaeographically, being carefully written in 
a semi-uncial hand approximating to the sloping oval type, examples of which 
are often too indiscriminately assigned to the third century. 

ΦίΧον^ίκωι [τώί 
καί Έρμοδφρω βα[σ{ι\ικω) 
γρα(μματίΐ) και Διονυσίψ και 
έτ€ρω Διονυσίω 
5 βιβλ{ιοφνλαξί) και ίπικριταΐς 
και Άπολλωνίω €ξτ]γτ)(τ€νσαντί) 
γρα(μματ€Ϊ) ιτολ^ζως) 
πα[ρα] 'ΑΐΓθλ[\ωνίου 

[ απ Όξνρνγ-] 

ΙΟ [χωΐ' ττόλζως 6π άμ-] 
[φόδου Νότου Κρη-] 

neiSos [ 

ρογ 8ov[X6s μον 

20 Καίσαρος του 

κυρίου, οθ^ν δ[η- 

λώ ζΐναί μζ {δωδ€κάδρα)(^μον) 

δια λαογραφί[α9 

β {ίτους) 'Αδριανού 
25 Καίσαρος του κ[υρίο(υ) 

€πϊ τοΰ αύτοΰ [άμ- 

φόδου και 6μν[ύω 


Καίσαρα Τραιανον 
3θ Αδριανον Χφαστον 

μη ζψ^υσθαι. (ίτους) ς- 


Καίσαρος Τραϊα- 
νού 'Αδριανού 



οίκογ€[ρη9 e/c 35 ^ββαστον Me- 

15 δονλη[? χβΐρ κ. 

rpj.ju . [. . . προσ- ^ 3nd~h^d κατ€χ{ωρίσθη) 

β^βηκ^Ιν els (τρισκαιδζΚα€Τ€ί5) > , ^ \ // \ t ν / \ 

^ ^^ ' •'- ^ ^ ' €πικ[ρίται?), Xpo(vos) ο αν(τοί). 

τω Sie\6[6pTi 

€ (erei) ^ASpia^jOV 

* To Philonicus also called Hermodorus, basilico-grammateus, and Dionysius and 
a second Dionysius, keepers of the archives and officers in charge of the selection, and to 
Apollonius, ex-exegetes and scribe of the city, from Apollonius ... of the city of 
Oxyrhynchus, living in the West Quay quarter. My slave . . . , born in the house to my 
female slave . . . , has reached the age of 13 years in the past 5th year of Hadrianus Caesar 
the lord. I therefore declare that I am rated at 12 drachmae by a poll-tax list of the 2nd 
year of Hadrianus Caesar the lord at the said quarter, and I swear by the Emperor Caesar 
Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus that I have made no false statement.' Date and docket of 

1-7. The papyrus is incomplete at the top and there are traces of ink above the first 
line, so no doubt the strategus (cf. 257. 14) preceded the βασΐΚικ6ς γραμματίίις. It is 
noteworthy that only two persons in this long list of officials, namely the βιβλιοφυΚακΐς, are 
called iniKplrai (cf. P. Fay. Towns 27. 3, and B. G. U. 562. 15, where ίπικ{ρΊτου) should be 
read) ; while 478 is addressed to the βιβλιοφύλακα alone. The βασιλικό: γραμματΐνς recurs 
in this connexion in 257. 15 and B. G. U. 562. 17. Applications of this class from the 
Fayom are usually sent to ex-gymnasiarchs owes np6s rjj imKpiaei. 

13-4. The supplements hardly fill the available space, but the lines vary a good deal 
in length. 

23. δίά λαογραφίας ι cf. 478. 22—3 (8ω8ίκά^ραχμον) bt ομολόγου λαογραφίας. 

37-8. A similar docket occurs in 478, and ΐπικρίταις may now be supplied there at the 
end of I. 49 on the analogy of the present papyrus ; cf. also 786. 

715. Registration of Property. 

30-7 X II-5 cm. A.D. 131. 

A return of house-property in the Heracleopolite nome, addressed, as usual, 
to the keepers of the archives, in A. D. 131, when a general άττογραφη of real 
property took place ; cf. B. G. U. 420 and 459, and 237. viii. 31, note. The 
formula is practically the same as that found in the Oxyrhynchus returns, 
e.g. 75 and 481. At the end is a docket of the βφλιοφνλαξ. 


Ήράι και 'npiyivet γ€γνμ{νασιαρχηκ6σι.) βιβλιοψυλακι €νκτή(σ€ων) Ήρα- 

πάρα Γοργίου και Γαλ€στον αμφοτέρων 
Πολζμωνο^ του Γοργίου μητρός Δωνυσιά- 
5 5ο? της Γαλύστον των άπο κώμης 
Το€μίσ€ως. άπογραφόμξθα ίδίωι 
κινδύνωι κοινώς ίξ ΐσον €ΐς το €ΐ'€[σ- 
τος ί€ {€Τος) 'Αδριανού Καίσαρος του κυρίου 
κατά τα Κ€λ€υσθίντα τα ξ.\ηλυθ6τ{α) 
ΙΟ e/y ημάς άπο ονόματος του μ^τηλ- 
\α)(^6τος ημών πατρός ΤΙόΚ^μωνος 
Γοργίου μητρός Ταποντώτος άπο 
της αυτής Τθξμίσ€ως, το €πιβά.λλ[ον 
αύτώι kv τήι αύτη Τοζμίσ€ΐ τρίτον 
15 μίρος οικίας και τδ επιβάλλον αύτώι 
μίρος ψιλοΰ τόπου, και πρότ€ρον 
της αδελφής αύτοΰ Έλίνης Γοργίου 
μητρός της αυτής Ταποντώτος 
κατά διαθήκην την και λυθζΐσαν 
20 τώι ιβ (erei) 'Αδριανού Καίσαρος τοΰ κυρίου 
π€ρι κώμην Ίβίωνα Παχνοϋβιν ίκ τοΰ 
Ζωίλου και Νουμηνίου κλήρου γής 
κατοικικής ήμισυ τέταρτον 
ογδουν και π€ρι Ψξλ€μαχ{ ) ίκ του Μ^νίπ- 
25 που και 'Αρτεμιδώρου κλ{ήρου) γής κατοιι^ι]κή[ς 
άρούρης τέταρτον, και όμνύομεν 
την Αύτοκράτορος Καίσαρος Τραϊανού 
'Αδριανού ^φαστοϋ τύχ{ην) και τού{ς) πατρώο{υς) 
θ€θύς €ξ ύγ{ίίας) και «π άληθ{βίας) ίπιδίδωκ^ύναι) την 
30 προκιμβνη(ν) άπογραφή{ν) και μηδέν δί€ψεΰσ6{αι) 
ή evo)(^oi είημεν τώι ορκωι. (έτους) le 
Αύτοκράτορος Καίσαρος Τραϊανού 

'Αδριανού Χεβαστοΰ μηνός Καισαρείου ετι[αγο{μενων) ε. 
2nd hand Γοργίας 6 π ρογεγ ραμμένος επιδ[εδω- 


35 κα. (3rd hand) Ήρας γ€γν(βνασίαρχηκως) Sia *Ιππο8( ) γραμμζατίως) 
ι<:[α]τακ€\ώ(ρικα) άδιακ(ρίτως ?) κινδ(ννω) των άπογρο^φομίνων) μηδ€νο9 
[δ]ημοσίον ή ί8ιωτικο{υ) καταβλαπ{τομ€νον). €παγο(μ€νων) €. 

1. 1. βιβλιοφνλαξι. 12. μη οί μητρός COIT. ΓγΟΠΙ του. Ι4• ω of αυτωι ΟΟΓΓ. from 7• 

18. 17? of Ti;y COrr. from απ. 24. 1. ογ8οον. 

• To Heras and Origenes, ex-gymnasiarchs, keepers of the records of real property in 
the Heracleopolite nome, from Gorgias and Galestus both sons of Polemon son of Gorgias, 
their mother being Dionysias daughter of Galestus, from the village of Toemisis. We 
register at our own risk jointly and equally for the present 15th year of Hadrianus Caesar 
the lord in accordance with the command the property which has devolved upon us from 
our deceased father Polemon son of Gorgias and Tapontos, from the said Tofe'misis, viz. 
the third share which fell to him of a house at the said Tofemisis and his share of a piece 
of open ground, and what previously belonged to his sister Helene daughter of Gorgias and 
the said Tapontos, in accordance with a will which was opened in the 12th year of Hadrianus 
Caesar the lord, near the village of Ibion Pachnoubis in the holding of Zoilus and Numenius 
if arourae of catoecic land, and near Pselemach( ) in the holding of Menippus and 
Artemidorus ^ aroura of catoecic land. And we swear by the Fortune of the Emperor 
Caesar Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus and by our ancestral gods that we have honestly and 
truly presented the foregoing declaration and that we have made no false statement, or 
may we be liable to the penalties of the oath. The 1 5th year of the Emperor Caesar 
Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus, 5th intercalary day of the month Caesareus. I, Gorgias the 
aforesaid, have presented the declaration. I, Heras ex-gymnasiarch, through Hippod( ), 
scribe, my representative, have entered it on the register jointly at the risk of the declaring 
parties, no public or private interests being injured. 5th intercalary day.' 

10. Above the ο of άπό the scribe has written μη, which makes no sense and seems to 
be a mere error. 

36. ά8ιακ(ρίτως) apparently corresponds to κοινώς ίξ Ίσου in 1. 7. 

716. Auction of a Slave. 

ι8•8χ 1 1-8 cm. A.D. 186. 

An application to a gymnasiarch from the guardians of three minors for 
a public auction of their wards' respective shares, amounting to two-thirds in 
all, of a male slave. The remaining third part of the slave was the property 
of the minors' half-brother, but had been emancipated by him ; and this com- 
bination of circumstances led to the present request for an auction [οΘ^ν f πιδιδομ€Γ, 
1. 1 8), though the legal point involved is not very clear. It is however certain, 
as Professor Mitteis remarks, that neither this papyrus nor 722, where a partial 


manumission is also concerned, can be brought under Roman law, according 
to which, at this period, in the case of a joint ownership of a slave, a manu- 
mitted share simply passed to the other owners (Ulpian, Fr. i. 18). There can 
therefore be only a question of Greek or Egyptian law ; and in the absence 
of parallels recourse must be had to more or less probable hypotheses. At the 
outset a doubt arises whether or not the partial manumission was the direct 
cause of the public auction. It is quite possible that the parties concerned 
merely wished to wind up their joint ownership, and that the details respecting 
the liberated share are accidental. If, however, the manumission was an 
essential factor, as odev in 1. 18 would rather indicate, the course here followed 
may be supposed to have been prescribed either in the interest of the slave 
or of the owners. In a sale by public auction the rights of a partially freed 
slave could be safeguarded in a manner which would not be practicable in 
a private treaty; and this consideration supplies a very likely explanation 
of the present proceedings. Or, on the other hand, as Mitteis suggests, a sale 
by auction would protect an owner who wished to retain his share of a slave 
against a partner or partners who desired manumission. A sale of this kind 
would place the larger owner at an advantage against the smaller, since the 
former, if successful, would pay the latter only a fraction of the purchase-money, 
while the higher the bid of the small owner the greater the sum due from him 
to the predominant partner. 

Άσκληπιά8ΐ] τω και ^αραπιω[νι γνμν]ασιάρχω 

πάρα Ώρ[ί]ωνο9 Πανζχώτου του Αωράτος μη- 
τρός Ταοντο? και 'Απολλώνιου Αωρίωνος 
5 του Ήράτο9 μητρός Θαήσιος καΐ Άβασκάντου 

άπΐλ^ύβίρου Χάμου ΉρακλξίΒου των τριών 

άπρ Ό^υρύγγων πόλεω? επιτρόπων αφηλι- 

κων τέκνων Θίωνος του κα\ Δι.[ον]υσίου 

Εύ8αιμονί8θ9 μητρός "Χινθζϋτος και Al- 
io ονυσίου και Θαήσιος αμφοτέρων μητρός 

Ταύριος των τριών άπο Ί[ή]ς αυτής π6λ€ως. 

ύπάργ^ι τοις αύτοΊς άφ[ηλ'\ι^ι ττ} μ\ν Εύδαι- 

μονίδι ζκτον μ^ρος τω 8\ Διονυσίω και 

Θαήσ€ΐ ήμισυ μ^ρος το ίπι το αύτο δίμοι[ρ]ον 
15 μ^ρος πατρικού αύτων δούλου Χαραπιω[νος 


d)S (βτων) λ ov TO XoLnou τρίτον ov του όμοπα- 

τρίου αυτών άδξλφοΰ Αίογ€νο[υ]ί ήλ^υθί- 

ρωται υπ αύτοΰ. οθ^ν ίπίδίδομξν το βιβ^ί- 

διον άξιοΰντ€9 κατά τδ δηλούμενον 
20 των άφηλίκων δίμοιρον μίρος την ττρο- 

κήρυξιν γζνίσθαί και τ^ν άμξίνονα 

aipeaiv διδόντί παραδοθηναι. (βτουζ) κζ 

Αυτοκράτορας Καίσαρος Μάρκου Αυρηλίου 

Κομμόδου Άντωνίνου Εύσββοΰς Ευτυχούς 
25 ^φαστοϋ Άρμίνιακοΰ Μηδικού Παρθικού 

Χαρματικοϋ Γερμανικού Μεγίστου 

Β ρ€τανν[ί]κοϋ Θώθ. (2nd hand) Ώρίων Πανεχώτου 

€ΐΓΐδύδωκα. (3rd hand) [^πο]λλώΐ'ω[5 Αω]ρίωνος συ[ν- 
επιδίδωκα. (4th hand) Άβάσκαντο[ς] άπε\εύθ€ρο[ς 
30 ϋάμου Ήρακλείδου συνζτη\δί.δ]ωκα. Αιο[γ€νη9 
Θεωνος το[ΰ] και Διονυσίου έγραψα ύπ€[ρ αύτοΰ 
μ^ είδότος γράμματα. 

*Το Asclepiades also called Sarapion, gymnasiarch, greeting, from Horion son of 
Panechotes son of Doras, his mother being Taous, and from Apollonius son of Dorion 
son of Heras, his mother being Thaesis, and from Abascantus, freedman of Samus son 
of Heraclides, all three of Oxyrhynchus and guardians of the children of Theon also 
called Dionysius, namely Eudaemonis, whose mother is Sintheus, and Dionysius and 
Thaesis, whose mother is Tauris, being minors and all three of the said city. The 
said minors own, Eudaemonis one-sixth and Dionysius and Thaesis a half, together two- 
thirds, of a slave of their father's named Sarapion, aged about 30 years, the remaining 
third share of whom, belonging to Diogenes their brother on the father's side, has been 
set free by him. We therefore present this memorandum requesting that in respect 
of (?) the aforesaid two-thirds a public auction should be held, and that the property should 
be handed over to the highest bidder. The 27th year of the Emperor Caesar Marcus 
Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Pius Felix Augustus Armeniacus Medicus Parthicus 
Sarmaticus Germanicus Maximus Britannicus, Thoth.' Signatures of Horion, Apollonius 
and Abascantus, that of the last-named being written for him by Diogenes son of Theon. 

19-20. The exact meaning of this passage is uncertain owing to the ambiguity of 
κατά, which may be connected with either άξιονντΐε or την ιτροκηρνξιν yeveaOat. In the former 
case κατά means ' because of,' and the request would be for the sale of the whole slave ; 
in the latter κατά signifies 'in respect of (cf. 722. 14), and no more than the two-thirds 
would be involved, — a sense which would have been more clearly expressed by the simple 
genitive τον . . . μίρονς. 

2 2. aiptaiv hibovTi: cf. B. G. U. 656, an advertisement of property to let, οί βονΚόμίνοι 

μισθάσασθαι . . . πρ^σΐ ρχίστωσαν Tois προς τοντοΐί epeaeiv (1. aipeaiv) 8idovT(S. 

717. PETITIONS ^^9 


717. Petition. 

17.5 X 20-5 COT. Late ist century b.c. 

Part of a complaint addressed, no doubt, to some official, with reference to 
a dispute about the fairness of a measure between the writer, who seems to have 
been responsible for a cargo of corn, and another person. Owing to the im- 
perfect condition of the papyrus, of which a preceding column or columns are 
lost and of which only the first line is complete, the details are obscure. A 
curious new word. ΙιΚ,τον, occurs in 11. 5 and probably 12, apparently denoting 
some kind of measure. The writer's style suggests that he was still labourmg 
under much excitement. 

μίτρωι Ιρβαλονμαι. ^κβοωντο^ Si μου καΐ κράζοντας τά τοσαυτα 

^^|,ατo μ^ λ^γων 8τι toIs μίτροίί σου ου θίλωί ίσχρήσασθαι, ή- 

νάγκασμα]ι 8k ύπ αύτοΰ [ά]λλο μίτρο^ άγοράσαι. άγοράσαντοί Se μου 
αύτο ΤΓοΙρίχωί ίχων τον κυβ^ρνψην και συνβάλλο αύτο ι^'^^^^' ^ 

] ζύρίσκωι αύτο npos το δίλ^τον, ξΐσττορξύομαι els την αύ- 

. . ίχων α]ύτο και παραλαμβάνωι Άσίψ τον άδ€λφον Έρασίππου ^ 

], ουν €ίσπορίύομαι Trpos τον στρατηγον ίχων αύτο καϊ 

συμβάλλω] αύτΙ irphs τΐ χαλκοϋν μ^τρον kv τωι συν^δρύωι, ίύρίσ- 

^^ αύτΙ ] /^€i>i δύο Tais εκατόν. Ιγώ οΰν φόων καΐ ίκραζον 

γρον το χαλκοϋν άδικόν €στι και ούκ ίστιν δίκαιον 

12 letters kv τωι συν]€δρύωι συν τωι στρατηγωι €κ{ρ)άζοσαν 
22, „ β]οώντων 5* αυτών ίίσφίρω το δίλ€- 

τον 31 letters ] βοών καΐ κράζων δτι τοϋτο €στι 
26 letters ήν]άγκασμαι βοάν αύτώι οτι 
28 „ 1 δ€ ούκ ίνβάλλομαι ώδζ 

28 „ ] . ίντυγχάνωντοί πυκνά 

24 »> ''Ί^^ δρόμου τ[ 

• • • * ' 

4. 1. συ/χ)3άλλω. ι6. 1. ίίτυγχάΐΌΐ/τοί. 




2. [. . . ημΐί]^ατο OX [άντημ(ί\•^ατο WOuld Suit the COntCXt. For η^pάyκaσμa]ι cf. 1. 1 4. 

5. The meaning and even the construction of -npos το bikiTov (the reading of which 
is quite certain) is very obscure. From 1. 12 it appears that the b'ikiTov was portable, 
and perhaps it was a species of measure, though whether it was that to which the writer's 
opponent objected (1. 2) or an official measure of some kind is not clear. Assuming 
this to be the meaning of bikerov, it is templing to connect προς το δ/λ. with συμβάλλω 
αυτό in 1. 4 ; but the intervening words ΐΰρΊσκω αυτό are then very difficult. Possibly 
προ! TO δίλ. is parallel to μ(ίζω δυο tqIs ίκατόν in 1. 9, since the general construction of 
11. 4-5 and 8-9 seems to be the same ; but irpos το δίλ. can by itself hardly mean ' equal 
to the biXfTOP ' and ΐσορ would have to be supplied. 

els την αυ\[: probably «ίϊ τηρ αυ\[τοΰ, i.e. the person referred to in 1. 2, or τηρ Ai\[ . . . 

8. For the use of bronze in official measures of. P. Tebt. 5. 85-92, and P. Amh. 
43• 9-10. 

718. Petition to the Epistrategus. 

25-8 X 17-5 cm. A.D. 180-192. 

A petition from Antistius Primus, who had held the chief priesthood and 
other offices at Oxyrhynchus, complaining that a payment due to the govern- 
ment upon 4 arourae of Crown land had been demanded from him, although 
his property included no land of that character. The land in question had 
perhaps been the subject of a perpetual lease, and owing to lapse of time and 
deficiencies in the survey-lists its identity had become doubtful ; cf. a similar 
case in P. Amh. 68, 5a sqq. 

From the character of the handwriting the papyrus must belong to the 
latter half of the second century, and there can be little doubt that the Xenophon 
here addressed, who was evidently a high official, was T. Claudius Xenophon, 
known to have been epistrategus in the reign of Commodus (C. I. L. III. 6575, 

Τίτω Ελανδίω 'Β]€ΐ^οφώντι [τω κρατίστω ίττιστρατήγω 

τταρα ] Άνθζστίον TIpu^[ov του καΐ Λολλιανοΰ 

1% letters σ\αντο^ και άρχΐ€ρ[ατζνσαντοί 
ΙΟ „ Trjs] Όζνρνγχξίτών [πόλ^ω? 
. . . ΐπριάμην μ]ίν πάρα Δωνυσίο[υ 

12 letters ό\υ συν τω Άλζ^άνΙδρψ τα? π€ρϊ Xevviv 
. . . ύπαρ)(^ούσα]ς αύτω €Κ 8ιαίρ[€σ€ως γ^νομίνη^ rrpos 
. . . και τον άδζλ]φον Άπολλώνιον νίώτ^ρον άρούρα? [σ€ΐ]τίκ^ς π^ντήκον- 

718. PETITIONS 191 

[τα 8vo ήμισ]υ καΐ kv ο^κοπί86\ι^ άρούρη? ήμισυ καθαρά^ άπο βασιλικής και 

ΙΟ [ούσιακη9 και Upd]? ακολούθως fj π^ποίημαι προς τους άβξλφούς διαιρίσ€ΐ 
[τ€λοΰι/τ6ς μου τα] της ιδιωτικής μόνης δημόσια, χρόνω δ\ παμπόλλω ΰστ€- 
[ρον /ί6τά τ]ζ.σσζράκοντα ίτη ουκ οΐδ* όπως του πράτου Διονυσίου άποθανόν- 
\τος 6 της . . .] . α κωμογραμματξύς π^ρι 8ν ίστιι/ και ή Χίννις ως e| €π€ρω- 
[τήσξως κτήτ]ορος παρ ου δξήσβι την άπαίτησιν ποιήσα[σ\θαι δημοσίων 

15 \αρουρων τ€σ]σάρων βασιλικής (ν πυροϋ άρτάβαις δ€κάπ€ντ€ προσζφώνησ^ν 
[τας τίσσαρας ταύ]τας άρούρας τής βασιλικής συναναμίγους eivai τή ύπαρ- 
[χούστ} μοι yfj τω]ν πεντήκοντα τριών οις ίπριάμην παρά, του Διονυσίου και 
[ 13 letters ]ου, ώς €Κ τούτου δζΐν τα δημόσια ύπ' ψοΰ άποδοθήναι 
[ 13 ,, ]ν μήτ€ βασιλικήν συνανάμιγον (σχηκότος μη^ αΰ γζωρ- 

2θ [γοϋντος μηδ' 6λω]ς γνωρίζοντος τι των ύπο του κωμογραμματίως 
[προσφωνηθίντων] ίτι δ\ άνωθ[ζ\ν των δημοσίων αποδιδόμενων 
\υπ\ρ των αύτων] άρουρων τεσσάρων ως είκος ύπο έτερων, επεί οΰν 
[βλάβη επαθον ού]κ ολίγα, άδικον δε μή γεωργοΰντα άπαιτεΐσθαί με δημσ- 
[σια ύπερ άλλοτρία]ς γής, δέομαι, εάν σοι δόζΐ], γράψαι τω του νομοΰ στρατηγώ 

25 \ινα ω προσήκον] εστίν τοΰτο πράξη επιστείλτ] κατά τά διατεταγμένα ενιευ 
[ 13 letters τ]α[ς] ύπο του κωμογραμματεως προσφωνηθείσας 
[άρούρας τεσσάρας βα]σιλικής συ[ν]αναμίγους είναι τή ιδιωτική μου 

[καΐ πρ]οσφωνήσυ τον επικρατούντα παρ' ου και ευλόγως ή 

[άπαίτησις των δημοσίω]ν γενήσετ[α]ι. περί γάρ ων άπητήθην ου δέον δημο- 

3© [σίων μενεΐ μοι ό λόγος πρ]ος τον φ[α]νησόμενον άντιποιούμενον, ΐν ω 
[βεβοηθη μένος. διε]υτ[ύ•)(ει, 

and hand [ Άνθεστιος Πρεΐμος ό και] Λολλιανος δια 'Απολλώνιου 

[ επιδεδωκα] 

2ζ. 1. πράξαι. 20. ττ of υττο ΟΟΓΓ. ? 

* Το his highness the epistrategus Titus Claudius Xenophon from . . . Antistius 
Primus also called Lollianus, . . ., ex -chief-priest ... of the city of Oxyrhynchus . . . 
I bought from Dionysius . . . with Alexander the land at Sennis . . . belonging to him 
in consequence of the division made with . . . and his brother ApoUonius the younger, 
namely 52^ arourae of corn-land and | aroura of building-land, free from obligations in 
respect of Crown land or Imperial estates or temple land, in accordance with the division 
made by me with the (my ?) brothers, the taxes upon the private land only being paid by me. 
A very long while afterwards, forty years having elapsed, it somehow happened after 
the death of the seller Dionysius that the komogrammateus of . . ., to whose district 
Sennis also belongs, in answer to an inquiry concerning the landlord from whom the 


demand should be made of the imposts for 4 arourae of Crown land amounting to 
15 artabae of wheat, stated that these 4 arourae of Crown land were included in the 
53 arourae belonging to me which I bought from Dionysius and . . ., and that therefore 
the imposts ought to be paid by me ... , although I have never had Crown land included 
in mine nor cultivate any and am altogether ignorant of the statements of the komo- 
grammateus, and although the imposts for the said 4 arourae have for years been paid 
in the regular course by others. Therefore since I have incurred no small loss and it is 
unjust that I should be asked to pay the imposts on land which does not belong to me 
and which I do not cultivate, I beg you, if you think fit, to write to the strategus of the 
nome, in order that in accordance with the decrees he may direct the officials whose 
duty it is to . . . the 4 arourae of Crown land declared by the komogrammateus to be 
included in my private land, and may state the owner from whom the demand for the 
imposts may reasonably be made ; for I shall retain a claim for the sums with which I was 
wrongfully charged against the person proved to be responsible for the payment, that 
so I may obtain relief. Farewell. (Signed) Presented by me, . . . Antistius Primus 
also called Lollianus, through Apollonius . . .' 

3. Probably ά-γορανομησ'αντοί, the municipal titles being usually arranged on an 
ascending scale; cf. Preisigke, Stadtisches Beamtenwesen in rom. Aeg. p. 31. 

8. \σ(.ι^ικά%: or possibly [ιδίω]τ«άΓ (cf. 11. 11 and 27), but [aetjrwcos makes a better 
contrast to eV οι'ί^κοπίδο^ίΓ, if that be right. 

9. καθαρας άπο βασιλίκψ κ.τ.λ. : cf. 506. 37 note, and 633. 

13. . . .] . α is the name of a village or enoUiov. 

14. κτητ\οροί, if right, is an objective genitive depending upon ΐπΐρω[τησ(ως; of. 1. 28. 
An alternative supplement is πράκτορος constructed subjectively, but the relative nap ου 
is then awkward. 

δημοσίων : i. e. the rent, the rate of which upon βασιλική γη was usually about 
4 artabae the aroura ; in the present case it was 3^ artabae. In 1. 11 on the other hand 
δημόσια has its Ordinary meaning of taxes. 

16. σνρανάμιγος appears to be a new compound. 

18. Perhaps [roC 'Αλ(ξΜρ]ου or [τοΰ *Απολλωΐ'ί]ου. But it would appear from 1. 12 
that there was only one πράτη:. 

25- evieu at the end of the line is clearly written, but suggests nothing; some word like 

ίπισκί-^ασθαι is wanted. 

719. Registration of a Deed. 

19-8 X ι6•6 fOT. A.D. 193. 

A notice addressed to the strategus by a certain Didymus of an authoriza- 
tion received by him from the archidicastes in ansu^er to an application which 
he had made for the registration of a purchase of some house property. A copy 
of the application, itself enclosing a copy of the agreement of sale, is appended, 
and gives some interesting information concerning the formalities attending this 
process of registration, which we think has not hitherto been understood. Texts 



of the same class already published are B. G. U. 455, 578 and 717, to which an 
important Leipzig papyrus will shortly be added (cf. P. Grenf. II. 71. 6, B. G. U. 
970. %o-2, 983. 10), The object in all these cases is to effect the ' publication' 
(δί/μοσίωσίί) of private agreements made by note of hand {χειρόγραφα), and the 
publication consisted in the registration of the agreements at the Library of 
Hadrian and the Nanaeum at Alexandria (cf. 1. '^^ below, B. G. U. 578. 19, and 
34). For such registration of a copy of an agreement the fixed charge of 
12 drachmae was payable (11. 30-1), to which is added in the Leipzig papyrus 
a tax proportionate to the value involved ; a declaration had to be made 
that the document registered was really written by the person by whom it 
purported to have been issued (11. 33-4, B. G. U. 717. 26, &c.); and a notice of 
the transaction was served in the ordinary way through the strategus upon the 
other contracting party, who would of course raise objections if any irregularity 
had occurred (11. 3-4). We are unable to find here, with Gradenwitz {Einfiihr- 
Mng, pp. 36-7), any question of a comparison of deeds or handwriting. The 
purpose was rather to obtain for the agreement concerned a validity which, as 
a mere χειρόγραφου, it did not previously possess, notwithstanding the formula 
a>s h δημοσιω κατακ(χωρι.σμ4νη (1. 28, &C.). In B. G. U. 578 the δτ/μοσίωσίί was 
preparatory to an action at law arising out of the non-fulfilment of the terms of 
the χζΐρόγραφον. In the other cases no such purpose is specified, and the step 
taken is only precautionary. This δί^μοσιωσι? of χειρόγραφα is to be distinguished 
from the simple notification to the archidicastes of contracts without any 
reference to καταχωρισμόί at the two libraries (cf. 727, introd.). 

The papyrus bears the date Phaophi of the 2nd year of Pescennius 
Niger ; other documents dated shortly before the collapse of his power are 801 
and P. Grenf. II. 60. 

Άχιλλΐ τω και Κασιω στρα(τηγω) 
2nd hand πάρα Δί8νμον 'Αμμωνίου μητρός Έλύνης άπ[οι]κου Ήλιου πό[λ€ω]?. 
ο[υ ξπ6][}[ισ]α 
εκ του καταλογείου χρηματισμού εστι^ άντίγρα^φον)• Ονιτάλιοί [ό ιερεύς και 
[άρχιδ]ικαστη9 Ό[ξ]υρυγχείτου στρα{τηγω) γα{ίρειν). του δεδομένου ύπο- 
μ{νήματος) avTi[ypa{(f)Ov)] μεταδο{θητω) ώ$• 
5 [ύπ6κ{ειταή. ε]ρρωσο. {έτους) β Γαίου Πεσκεννίου Νίγερος Ίούστου 
Χζβαστ[ο]ϋ Φαωφι κτ}. 

[ ] • J]f>^ ' { ) [σ]€σημ{είωμαι). Πρ\εμ[ω]ν Πα ..[...] Ύραμματ{εύς) 

καταλογ[ειου .] . πο( ) εγ[ραψα. 



Ού[ί\ταΚί<ο Upi άρ)(ΐδ[ικα]σττϊ και ττρ[ο]9 [rfj] f^/i/^lfXiejia των χρηματιστών 
και των άλλων κριτηρίων τταρα Δι[δύμου Άμ\μω[νι]ου μη[τ\ρο9 ^Ελίνη^ 
άπο[ί\κου ^Ηλίου ττόλεω?, τον προημίνου μοι άπλοϋ χ€ΐρογρά(ρ[ου] άντί- 
[γ/)(α0οί/)] υπ6κ{ΐΐται). 

ΙΟ Παποντωί Βιθνο? μητρός Τσζνπαγοϋτο^ άπο τον Τρύφωνος [Είσ€ίο]ν [τον 
Όξνρνγχ^ίίτον νομον Αιδνμω Άπολλωνίον μητρός Έλύνη^ άπ[οί]κον 
Ήλιον τΓολεω? yaipuv. ομολογώ πξπρακίναι και 7Γαρακ€)(ω[ρ]η[κζν]αι 
σοι άπο τον ννν €is τον aei yjpovov άπο των νπαργόντων μοι kv τω [αν\τω 
Τρύφωνος Είσ^ίω kv tois άπο νότον μβρ^σι τή9 κώμη^ ήμι[σ]ον9 [μ€]ρο9 

15 οικιών δνο βιστβγον και αίθριου κοινών προ9 τον άδξλφόν μον Παονν, 
ων γζίτον€ί Trjs μ\ν μιά$ τον αιθρίον νότου €Ϊσοδο9 και e^oSos βορρά [κλ]η- 
ρονόμων Διογάτο^ άπηλιώτον κληρονόμων " Slpov λιβο? δημοσ[ί]α ρύ- 
μη, τή9 {Se) SevTepas νότον Παποντωτος Movdios βορρά Ήρακλίίδον 
^Ωρ^ίωνος άπηλιώτον δημοσία ρύμη Χιβο^ Μιύσιος Μύλανο?, 

2θ τιμής της σνμπίφωνημίνης προς άλλήλονς νπ\ρ παραχωρητι- 
κού άργνρίον Χφαστον νομίσμα\τοί δραχμών δισχ^ιλίω^ν ,\ άί 

αυτόθι άπύσχον πάρα σον δια [χειρός ]δραση γ€ΐνόμξνο9 

βφαιονν δύ //€ αντας τ[ας οικίας καθαρας] άπό Τ€ δημοσίας 
κα[ι ίδιωτική]ς όφιλής και άπο απογραφής ανδρών κ[α]ι [€]ιδους 

25 οντινοσοΰν άλλον και €^ονσίας σοι ονσης Ιτίροις παρ[αχωρζΐν και 
διοιΚ€[ΐ]ν κα[ι] ίπιτΐλ^ΐν πίρϊ αυτών ως eav aipfj. κνρία \f] ομολογία 
γραφζϊσα νπ (μον τον Παποντώτος ί8ί^ι]όγραφος μον χω[ρις άλζίφατος 
και επιγραφής ως kv δημοσίω κατακ€χωρισμίν[η. (ίτονς) α Ταίον 
Πΐσκξννίον Νί[γ]€ρος Ίούστον Χξβαστον Παΰνι κ. βον[λόμ€νος ονν 

3θ ev δημοσίω γξνύσθαι το αύθ^ντικον γζΐρόγραφον διδο^ς τας 

ορισθείσας (δραχμας) ιβ €ν€κα τον μη π^ρύχειν μ€ τας περί [δημοσιώ- 
σ€ως διαστολας και μοναγον δημοσιονσθαι άξιώ άν[αλαβόντα 
το αύθξντικον χίΐρόγραφον ^χ(ΐν μον γειρογραφίαν \π€ρΙ του 
ίΐναι αντο ίδιόγραφον τον Παποντώτος σννκαταχωρ[ίσαι τώδ€ τω 

35 ύπομνή[ματι] €ΐς τ[ην Άδριανην βί\β[λί\οθήκην €ΐς [ 

2. Second δ of δίδυμου corr. from first half of a μ. 5• φαωφι apparently over an 

erasure. 7. lepi Pap. 9. 1. προημίνου. ΙΟ. X οί τσίίηταχουτος corr. from y by 

another hand. 11. αποΚΚωνιου corr. from αμμωνίου by another hand. 14. 1. ημισν. 

31. A correction after /xe; cf. note below. 33. 1. (χ,ον. 

719. PETITIONS 195 

'To Achilles also called Casius, strategus, from Didymus son of Ammonius and 
Helene, a settler from Heliopolis. Appended is a copy of the official response received 
by me from the record offi.ce. " Vitalius, priest and archidicastes, to the strategus of the 
Oxyrhynchite nome, greeting. Let a copy of the petition which has been presented 
be served as folloAvs. Good-bye. The 2nd year of Gains Pescennius Niger Justus 
Augustus, Phaophi 28. Signed by me . . . Written by me, Polemon son of . . . scribe 
of the record office. . . . To Vitalius, priest, archidicastes and superintendent of the 
chrematistae and other courts, from Didymus son of Ammonius and Helene, a settler 
from Heliopolis. Appended is a copy of the bond issued singly to me. Papontos son 
of Bithys and Tsenpachous, of Ision Tryphonis in the Oxyrhynchite nome, to Didymus 
son of Apollonius and Helene, a settler from Heliopolis, greeting. I acknowledge that 
I have sold and ceded to you from henceforth for ever of my property in the said Ision 
Tryphonis in the southern part of the village a half share of two houses, one having two 
storeys, the olher a yard, owned jointly by me and my brother Paous, the boundaries of which 
are, of the one with the yard, on the south an entrance and exit, on the north the property 
of the heirs of Diogas, on the east that of the heirs of Horus, on the west a public road, 
and of the other, on the south the property of Papontos son of Mouthis, on the north 
that of Heraclides son of Horion, on the east a public road, on the west the property 
of Miusis son of Melas, at the price agreed upon between us . for the cession namely 
2000 drachmae of the Imperial silver coinage, which sum I have received immediately 
from hand to hand . . . ; and I guarantee the houses free from public and private debts 
and unaffected by persons' property-returns or any other claims, the right resting with 
you to cede to others and to manage and dispose of them as you choose. This contract, 
written by me, Papontos, in my own hand without erasure or insertion, is valid as though 
publicly registered. The ist year of Gains Pescennius Niger Justus Augustus, Pauni 20. 
Being therefore desirous that the authentic bond should be publicly registered I offer 
the prescribed 12 drachmae, in order that the regulations concerning publication may 
not apply to me (?), and that a single copy may be published, and request you to take this 
authentic bond bearing my attestation that it is the autograph of Papontos and register 
it together with this petition at the Library of Hadrian . . ." ' 

3. eV ToC : in 485. 3 ex should also be read instead of 7ra(pa). 

6. γραμμαΊ(^ίνς) καταλογ[€ίου : this no doubt was also the position of Hephaestion 
in 485. 8 and Flavius Aurelius in B. G. U. 578. 8. The mraXoyehv was presumably at 

22. ]δραση looks like the termination of a place name. 

23-4. καθαραα] . . . άπο απογραφής', cf. 577 καβαρον (a share of a hoUSe) από άττογραφής 
πάση! κα\ άπο γ(ωργ\Ίας) βασιλικής και ουσιακης καϊ παντός ίώους. 

27—8. χω[ρίϊ άλ€ίφατος^^ και επιγραφής : cf. Β. G. U. 666. ^1, 7ΐ7• ^4> ^^• 

31-2. This is an obscure passage, the difficulties being increased by a slight un- 
certainty concerning the reading of pe, which is followed in the original by something 
having the appearance of a tall v. To read μου is unsatisfactory because the e does 
not seem to have been touched, and we prefer to suppose that the tail of the φ of 
χίΐρόγραφον in 1. 30, which is immediately above, descended into the line below and 
was cut oflf by a curved cross-stroke, so producing the effect of a υ. With μου, supposing 
that were intended, the meaning would be ' because it (the χΐΐρόγραφον) does not comprise 
my 8ιαστολαί ' ; and the words may be construed in a somewhat similar sense with the 
more probable reading pe 'because I do not possess the orders for publication,' the 
reference to the δίαστολαί being in either case quite unexplained. On the view adopted 

Ο a 


in our translation the hiaaroXai n-epl 8ημοσίώσ€ως may be supposed to have prescribed certain 
penalties or disabilities if the form of procedure followed by the petitioner was neglected. 

720. Request for a Guardian. 

2i'^xg-S cm. a.d. 247. Plate VII. 

A petition in Latin addressed to the praefect, Claudius Valerius Firmus, 
by a woman named Aurelia Ammonarion, that he would appoint a particular 
person as her guardian in accordance with the /(?λγ lulia et Titia. This measure, 
which is supposed to have been passed in B.C. 31, empowered the praefects 
of provinces to assign guardians to women and minors who were without them. 
Appended to the document, which is signed in Greek by the petitioner and her 
proposed guardian, is the reply of the praefect making the appointment as 
desired. The rarity of accurately-dated specimens of Latin cursive gives the 
papyrus a considerable palaeographical interest. 

\0}{audio) Valeria Firm[o praef{ecto) Aeg{ypti) 
ab Aurelia {e} Amjnc[nario. 
rogo domine des mtjii 
auctoreni Aurel{ium) Pylutammonem 
5 e lege lulia Titia et ....[... 

dat{um) do{minis) no{stris) Philippo Aug{usto) ii ejt 
Philippo Caesaris c[o{n)s{tdibus). 

2nd hand \Αγ;ρη\ία Άμμωνάρων [kinSiSaiKa. 
3rd hand [Α\ΰρη\ία Πλοντάμμ[ων ΐύβοκώ rfj 

10 [δ€]ήσι. 
4th hand {ίτονή δ Τνβι ι. [ 

5th hand, quo ne aU\^ 

abeat Pl]Utammonem 
e leg{e) Iul{ia) et [Titia auctorem 
15 do. (6th hand?) cepi. 

6. ά°ά^• jfn° Pap. 7. 1. Caesar e. 9. 1. Avpfjkios. 

' To Claudius Valerius Firmus, praefect of Egypt, from Aurelia Ammonarion. 
I beg, my lord, that you will grant me as my guardian Aurelius Plutammon in accordance 
with the lex Julia Titia . . . Dated in the consulship of our lords Philippus Augustus 

721. CONTRACTS 197 

for the 2nd time and Philippus Caesar. (Signed) I, Aurelia Ammonarion, have presented 
the petition, ΐ, Aurelius Plutammon, assent to the request. The 4th year, Tubi 10. 
(Endorsed) In order that . . . may not be absent, I appoint Plutammon as guardian in 
accordance with the lex lulia et Titia. Received by me.' 

I. Valerius Firmus is already known as praefect at this time from P. Amh. 72 
(a.d. 246) and 81 (a.d. 247). With regard to the date of P. Amh. 72 Wilcken considers 
{Archiv, II. p. 127) that the regnal year should be read as $• instead of y, as in our text; 
but we still hold that y is right and that the facsimile, so far from throwing any doubt 
upon our reading, thoroughly confirms it. 

5. lege Mia Titia \ cf. Gains, Inst. i. § 185 si cut nullus omnino tutor sit, ei datur 
in urbe Roma ex lege Atilia . . . in provinciis vero a praesidibus provinciarum ex lege 
lulia et Titia. In the official signature below (1. 14) the more usual and probably more 
correct form lulia et Titia is used. The et has sometimes been regarded as a reason 
for supposing that there were two leges, a Julia and a Titia, but the conclusion is by no 
means necessary. 

Of the mutilated word at the end of the line the first letter may be a, e, t, s, or /, 
and the second a, r, m, n, or λγ. 


721. Sale of Crown Land. 

15x16-5 cm. A.D. 13-14• 

An offer addressed by two persons to Gaius Seppius Rufus, perhaps 
idiologus, for the purchase of 19 arourae of land which had reverted to the 
State and was at the time uncultivated, at the price of 12 drachmae per aroura. 
The document follows, so far as it goes, the same formula as P. Amh. 68. 17-24, 
which Mitteis is no doubt right in explaining, not as a sale in the strict sense, 
but as an example of emphyteusis or hereditary lease {Zeitschr. Savigny-St. 
1901, pp. 151 sqq.)— a custom for which we now have evidence in Egypt as early 
as the second century B. C. (cf. P. Tebt. I. 5. la). That this is the true nature of 
the transaction, in spite of the use of the term ώι/τ^σασ^αι, is shown both by the 
lowness of the price— in P. Amh. 68. 21, 20 drachmae, here only 12— and by 
the provision in the Amherst papyrus for an annual rent. Cf. 835, which is 
a similar offer for the ' purchase ' of land addressed to the same official as 721, 
and P. Amh. 97. The document was never completed, blank spaces being left 
for some of the dates. 


Γαίωι Χίππί(ύ 'Ρονφωι 

τταρα Πολίμωι/θ9 τον Τρύφωνος και ^^Αρχ^λάον 

βονλόμβθα ώνήσασθαι kv τωι Όξνρνγ^[€ίτηι άπο 

υπολόγου βασιλική? eitoy του (βτουί) Καίσ[α]ρ[θ9 κλήρων €- 

5 7Γΐ του (eToyy) Καίσαρος άν^ιλλημίνων καΐ άφ6ρ[ω]ν 

γεγονότων και κλήρων των έω? του άνβιλλημζνων 

και αύτον (ίτους) Καίσαρος άνπλλημίνων ττλήν tepas e/y κα[ρΐΓθύς (?) 

τον ίσιόντος τβτάρτου και τ€σσαρακ6στου ίτους Καίσαρος, \ο μ\ν 
Πολίμων π^ρι Θώσβιν και Τξπονιν τ^[?] ανω '[θ'π[α]ρ)([ίας 

ΙΟ άρούρ[ας) δξκάττξντβ, / άρουρ(αι) ΐ€, δ δΐ Αρ)(^ίλ[αος τηρΐ της 

Θμοισ^φω τοπαρ-χΙ^ίας) άρούρ{ας) τβσσαρςς, y^ άρουρ[αι) [δ, / άρουρ(αΐ) ιθ^ 
€φ' φ παραδβιχ^θβντβς ταύτας διαγράψομ[€ν €ΐς την ίπι των τό- 
πων [δη]μοσίαν τράπ^ζαν την Κ€Κ€[λ€υσμζνην τιμήν 4κάστης 
άρούρ'ας) [άργν(ρίον) [δρα)(^μας)] δΐκάδυο, ^^ομζν δ\ e/y την τού[των άνα- 
γωγην και κα- 
ι ζ [τ€ργασίαν άτίλααν ^]τηι τρία άπο του [ΐίσιόντος μδ (eroi/y) Καίσαρος 

5• 1. άνΐϊΚημμίραν \ SO in 1. 7• 

* Το Gaius Seppius Rufus from Polemon son of Tryphon and Archelaus son of . . . 
We wish to purchase in the Oxyrhynchite nome of the Crown land returned as unpro- 
ductive up to the . . . year of Caesar, from the holdings which were confiscated in the . . . 
year of Caesar and became unfruitful and the holdings confiscated up to and including the 
. . . year of Caesar, exclusive of temple land, for cultivation in the coming 44th year of 
Caesar — namely Polemon at Thosbis and Tepouis in the upper toparchy fifteen arourae, 
total 15 arourae, and Archelaus at ... in the toparchy of Thmoisepho, four arourae, total 
4 arourae, total 1 9 arourae, with the understanding that on these being assigned to us we 
shall pay into the local State-bank the price ordered for each aroura, 12 drachmae of silver, 
and shall have for their reclamation and cultivation immunity from taxation for three years 
from the coming 44th year of Caesar . . .' 

I. For Seppius Rufus cf. VVessely, Pap. Script. Graec. Specim. no. 8, and P. Brit. Mus. 
276, which shows that he was of higher rank than strategus. 

4. xmoKoyov βασιλικής', vwokoyos and το νποΚογον are terms frequently used in the 
Tebtunis papyri to describe Crown land out of cultivation ; cf. P. Tebt. I. p. 540. The 
only other example of this use of the word in the Roman period is P. Amh. 68. 

4-5. [κλήρων] . . . άν€ΐλλημά>ωι^ : cf. P. Tebt. I. 6 1 {d). 74 &c. and P. Amh. 68. 18, which 
can now be restored on the analogy of the present passage κλήρων . . . άν(]ιλημμ(νων κα\ι 

άφορων και (?)..]... των (perhaps άχρηστων^ γε[γονότων. 

7- πλην ifoas is apparently to be connected with ώνήσασθαι rather than άν€ΐλημμ(νων. 


The saleable land hπo\6yov βασιλικής is regarded as including both the confiscated κ\ηρα 
and certain Uph γη which must also have reverted to the government. . 

12. παρα8„χθ^ντ^ί ταύτα:: cf. P. Amh. 68. 20, where παpαδ6tχ^els [ταν]ταί IS no doubt 

to be read, p. Tebt. 79. i6, &c. , ^ , ^ - 

13. Tfjv ^,κε[λ^νσμ4νην τιμψ ; cf. P. Amh. 68. 20 T^v κ[^\€νσβίΐσα]ν τψψ νπο Αονκιου 
^lovhiov \θ]νησ\τ^ίνον το\ν ήγφόι{υ1ϊ. 

14-5. The supplements are taken from P. Amh. 68. 21. Other conditions on the 
lines of P. Amh. 68 presumably followed. 835 concludes άξίω €V«rreiXat? . . .] κα\ toU 

ypapparevai ^κδόσθαι μοι roi-[r . . . nep\ ταύ]ταί χρηματισμού:, and Something of thlS kind 

apparently underlies P. Amh. 68. 23-4. 

722. Emancipation of a Slave. 

24-3Xioi-w. A.D. 91 or 107. 

This document, which contains a formal emancipation of a female slave, 
drawn up before the agoranomi and concluding with an acknowledgement of 
the ransom, is of great interest as being the first specimen of its class from 
Egypt which is prior to the introduction of the constitutio Antonina, and 
illustrating the differences between Graeco-Egyptian and Roman law on the 
subject of manumission. Of the two previously known parallels, B. G. U. 96, 
which is a mere fragment, belongs to the third century and the Papyrus 
Edmondstone (facsimile in Young's Hieroglyphics, ii, Plate φ ; text in Curtius, 
Anec. Delph. App. 1, Wessely, Jahresber. des k. k. Staatsgym. in Herfials, xiiu 
pp. 47-8) to A. D. 354. Since the publications of the latter papyrus are some- 
what inaccessible, we append the text of it on p. 202. Other papyri concerning 
the emancipation of slaves are 716, 723, a similar but much shorter example 
of a second century manumission, 48-9 and 349, which are letters to the 
agoranomi authorizing them to liberate slaves. The ends of lines are lost 
throughout 722, but can in part be restored either from the context or from 
a comparison with another and quite complete specimen of an emancipation, 
written in the reign of Commodus, which we opportunely found in January, 1904. 
The most striking feature of 722 is the circumstance that it is concerned, not 
with the emancipation of an individual whose status was entirely that of a slave, 
but with a joint manumission by two brothers of the third part of a slave who 
as regards the other two-thirds had already been made free ; cf. the parallel case 
in 716 and, as it now appears, in P. Edmondstone 6. That the previous owner 
of the I was a different person from the two owners of the ^ is not stated 
directly but is in the light of 716 likely enough. It is also noticeable that the 


ransom is paid, not by the slave herself or by a banker, but by a private 
individual, perhaps her prospective husband, and that a distinction is drawn 
between the λύτρα paid to the owner and a small sum in silver which probably 
went to the State ; cf. note on 1. 19. 

"Etovs δζκάτου Αύτοκράτορ[θί Καίσαρος Δομιτιανου 
^φαστον Γερμανικού Ύπ€[ρβ€ρ€ταίου 
ίπαγο{μ€νων) (2nd hand) τ ^φα{στ9ί) (1st hand) μη{νος) Kaiaapciov 

€[παγο{μ€νων) (2nd hand) τ ^φα{σττ}) (ist hand) iu Ό- 
ξνρύγχων πό\α της Θηβαίδ[ο9 in άγορανο- 
5 μων Ψαμμίων τριών [ 

άφύκαν €{υ}λ€νθ€ραν νπο Δία Γ[ην "Ηλιον Άχιλλ€ΐ/9 
ώς (ίτών) κ μίσος μελίχρως μ[ακροπρ6σωπος 
[ον{λη) μ]€τώπω μίσω καΐ ^αραπ[ας ως (ετών) . μίσος 

[yitjeXr Γχρωί μακροπρόσωττος ον(λη) 

ΙΟ [. . ά]ριστ€ρ[. αμφότεροι του 

^Λμ]μωνίον μητρός Χαραποϋτος [ 

[τω]ν απ Ό ^υ ρυγχών πόλεως [εν άγυια το ύ- 
[πάρ]χον αύτοΐς εξ ίσου τρίτον με[ρος της εξαπη- 
[λευ]Θερωμενης κατά το άλλο 8[ίμοιρον δού- 
15 λης Άπολλωνοΰτος ως (ετών) κς μεσ[ης μελίχρωτος 

[μα]κροπροσώπου ούλη πόδι δ[εξιω 

εξαπηλευθερωμενης (ταλάντων) δ[ 

Γ. Λν των τον άπελενθερονμενον .... τρίτου 

Ιμερου]ς αργυρίου επισήμου δρα[χμων 

2θ [τ]ε[τ]ρωβόλου και ων τετακται [. . . . Άχιλλεΐ 

και Χαραπα Ήρακλας Τρνφωνο[ς του 

μητρός Ταοννώψριος Παγεσι[ άπο της 

[α]ύτής πόλεως ως {ετών) λα μεσο[ς μελίχρως 
μακροπρόσωπος ού{λη) νπερ γό(νυ) δεξ[ιον λύτρων 
25 αργυρίου Σεβαστού νομίσμα[τος δραγ^μών 

διακοσίων γαλκοϋ ταλάντω[ν 

γJ.λίωv, ουκ εξάντος τω 'Α)([ιλλεΐ ού^ άλλω 

\υ]περ αύτοϋ άπαίτησιν ποιε[ΐσ6αι πάρα της Απολ- 

[λ]Άνοΰτος ούδε των π[αρ αυτής των προκει- 

722. CONTRACTS 201 

30 [μ]€νων λύτρων ουδ' €7Γί€[ 

γρωστηρ τη? ζλζνθ€ρώ[σ€ω9 

του Π€Τ€ήσω? μητρο? [ άττδ τη9 αύτη? 

πολεω? ώ? {ίτων) μ μ[^σο9 μΐλίχρω? μακρό- 

πρόσωπο? ού{λη) άντικ[νημίω h άγυια 

35 Τ77 αντηι. (2nd hand) 'Αχιλλ[€ν? 

7Γίπύημ€ σ[ύρ τψ άδίλφω 

^ζραττατί τη[ρ ίλίνθίρωσίν 

του τρίτου [μίρου? δούλη? 

'Απολοροΰτ[ο? και άπύχω 
4θ τα λύτρα ά[ργυρίου δραχ{μα?) 

διακοσία[? χαλκού 

On the verso 

€παγο{μίνων) τ [ 

1 6. 7Γ of πόδι corn from δ. ^6. Ι π^ηοίημαι. 39• 1. 'Α'Τολλωι/οΰτίοί. 

'The loth year of the Emperor Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus, on the 6th 

intercalary day of Hyperberetaeus, dies Augustus, which Js the 6th intercalary day of the 

month Caesarius, dies Augustus, at Oxyrhynchus in the Thebaid, before three agoranomi 

TaUed Psammis. AchiUeus! aged about 20 years, of middle height, fair, having a long face 

and a scar on Ae middle of his forehead, and Sarapas, aged about . . years, of middle 

height, fair, having a long face and a scar on his left . . ., both sons of . . . son ο 

Ammonus,'their rfother bdng Sarapous daughter of ..,, all of Oxyrhynchus, have set 

free under sanction of Zeus, Earth, and Sun (the deed being drawn up in the street) the 

third part which they jointly own of the slave who has been freed as regards the other two- 

thhds! Apollonous, Iged about 26, of middle height, fair having a long face and a scar 

on the right foot, . for . . . drachmae 4 obols of coined silver and the ransom paid to 

TchiUeuslnd Sar'apas by Heraclas son of Tryphon son of . . his mother ^^^^^Ζ^Λ^οΙ 

daughter of . . . of the said city, aged about 31. of middle height, fair, having a long face 

and\ scar above his right knee, namely 200 drachmae of I^P^^^V'^fT '°'''f 'h Hh;; 

Xts 000 drachmae of copper Achilleus or any one else on his behalf being forbidden 

to make any demand of the aforesaid ransom from Apo lonous or her assigns or to . 

The certifier of the manumission is . . . son of Peteesis, his mother bemg of the said 

city, aged about 40, of middle height, fair, having a long face and a scar upon his . . . shin, 

^"'^'r.7c\iiieus;have with my brother Sarapas effected the emanapat^^" f ^Jj^^^f „^. 
part of the slave Apollonous, and I have received the ransom, two hundred drachmae of 

silver , . .' 


I. Since the papyrus must on palaeographical grounds be assigned to the end of the 
first or the early part of the second century, the coincidence of a 6th intercalary day with 
the loth year of an emperor called Germanicus fixes the reign as that of either Domitian 
or Trajan. The supplement at the end of 1. i is in any case long compared with the 
lo letters which are missing in 1. 2, and Domitian is therefore preferable. 

6. Cf. the similar beginning of P. Edmondst. 6 sqq. For Δία Tljiv "Yikiov, cf. 48. 6, &c. 

12. iv αγυιά is supplied from the newly found emancipation (cf. introd.) ; cf. tv ayvia\ 
τη αυτηι in 11. 34-5. We are inclined to think that this formula, which so far is only known 
at Oxyrhynchus, regularly implies the execution of the document before the agoranomi, 
who are mentioned much less frequently in Oxyrhynchus contracts than elsewhere. 

16-9. The newly found emancipation proceeds straight from the description of the 
slave to the mention of the αργύρων επίσημον corresponding to 1. 19, and owing to the 
lacunae it is not clear whether the sum mentioned in 1. 17 is the ransom of the whole 
slave or of the f previously set free. On the whole we think the latter hypothesis is more 
likely. The talents are in either case probably copper. 

19. αργυρίου επισήμου', the newly found emancipation has άργ. ΐττισ. δραχμών teKa κα\ S)V 
Τΐτακται υπίρ αυτόν (sc. the slave) τω θ€ωνι (the owner) . . . λύτρων άργ. 8ραχ. πεντακοσίων, ΟΤϊ 

the analogy of Avhich we have supplied λύτρων in 1. 24. It is clear from that papyrus that 
a distinction was drawn between the payment in αργύρων ίπίσημον and the ransom paid to 
the owner, and from 48 and 49 in which the same amount of αργύρων ίπίσημον, ίο 
drachmae, is coupled with different sums expressed in copper, there would seem to have 
been a normal charge of 10 drachmae in addition to the ransom, in spite of 732. 19-20, 
where the amount of άργ. ίπισ. cannot be 10 drachmae. The divergence of 722 at this 
point may be due to the fact that it is concerned with the emancipation of only part 
of a slave. To whom these τ ο drachmae were paid is not made clear, but it is probable 
that the State in some form was the recipient. Nowhere in connexion with these 
emancipations under Graeco-Egyptian law is there a mention of the vicesima libertatis 
levied under Roman law, which appears in B, G. U. 96, 8 {τψ \άω\θυΐΊαν (Ικοστήν) ; but if, 
as we are now disposed to think, the status of the persons who Avrote 48-9 was that of 
farmers of the εγκύκλων and 48-9 stand towards such documents as 722 in the same kind 
of relation as 241-3 towards contracts for sale or mortgage, there must have been a tax 
upon the emancipation of slaves apart from the 10 drachmae αργυρίου επισήμου. 

Papyrus Edmondstone. a.d. 354. 

et77-ci)( ) υπατ([ία]ς των 8ίσποτων ήμων 'Κ.ωνσταντίου Αυγούστου το ζ κη\ Κωνσταντίου του 

€πιφαν(στάτου Καίσαρος το γ 
Ύνβι ιζ τη: ιγ Ινδικτίονυς, iv 'Έ.\(φαντίνη\ς\ πάλει της Άνω θηβαίδος. 
Αυρηλία Ύηρουτήρου Ώ.ασμητο5 μητρός Ύσενπαχνούμεως οπό Έλεφαντίνης πόλΐως μετά 

συνεστίύτ^ο ς 
\τ\οΰ κυρίου αυτής ανδρός Αυρηλίου Δωροθίου Σερήνου άπο της αυτής πόλΐως Αυρηλιω 

5 μητρός Ύαπαμώνος κα\ Ύκαλήτι ΐκ μητρός θαήσως και (τ^ή ταύτη(ς^ βυγατρ\ Αυρηλία Αουσία 

μοι δουλοι(ί) ΰπερ τοΰ (πιβάλλοντος μέρους χαίρειν. έμολογω εκουσίως κα\ αυθαιρέτως και 
άμετανοήτως άφικεναι υμάς ελευθε'ρους τον επιβάλλοντος μοι μέρους υπό Την και Ουρανον κατ 

τΓοΙϋ πανελεήμονος θεοΰ ελβόντος εις εμε από κληρονομιάς της μητρός μου άπο τοΰ νΰν επι 

τον άπαντα χρόνον 

723. CONTRACTS ' 203 

κα\ avff hv eVeSe/^wa^e μοι Karh χρόνον eivoias κα\ στοργή, ?ri re κα\ νηηρ^σία,. ρ.π,σθ, 

ovv υμάς . ^ •. λ >< ο '\ ' 

ΙΟ «ατά τ[6] ^ροκάμ.νάν μου μίρος καθίο, npoel^ov κα\ νψ^σθ. ets ον. ea. βονλητ. τοττονί 

άκωλύτως , « - .% λ ' ' 

κα\ άν^η^λημητ.,, .IboKelv yhp κα\ ..ίθ.σθα. ψβ τή. eX.v^.pov.ra ro« Αεν^φο.μ.,ο.. «. 
τή.δ6 \τ\^ν ίλ.νθψωσ^ν tJk.iv το« βλβυ^.ρονμ^'.οίί καθώς προδβδ,,λοντα. κα. το« ^ξ «.τω. 
eWVoi. eir. eV. ^,Xe/ots r«.o« eire eVl eVepoti «γό.ο«• μτ,τβ μψο.ς .αν κτησησθ. τρο{ηψ) 
μη\ίνϊ\ ηαρ,νρ^ση μη8ψΓα ivr.iB.v άκί>\ντον %στα. τ^ί δουλ,.αί, κα» ^j; e^earat h. μφ.ν. τω. 
„ ^uL κλ,ρο.,5;:ω. όπαίαπλω. «.rtXeyct. μου ταύτ, τ.^ βύσββ^α π.ρ. μ,δε,ο. κατά μ,δβ.α 
" L• μφμ,άς αφορμής τώ καβό\ον 8C Ρ,ν κα\ airo\ τω χρόνω .νώ.4<^ν μα. .ννο.αν Kac 
φίΚοστοργίίαν, \ >\ δ > - 

κα\\λ airh άμοφόμ.νος rhs όμοφίις ίκ^>ν κα\ π.τΓίσμ^νη ζ.ο. «ί τψ8^^ την eXevdep^av ηνττ.ρ 
ewi. κνρίαν κα\ βφαίαν άn^v γραφύσαν -ηανταχο'ν ί^.φ.ρομ.νην ,φ νπογραφης ψον Δώρο- 
θ^ον roO άν8ρ6ς αΐτης πρί,ς αϊωνίαν νμων «σφάλβ^α., κα\ ίπ^ρωτηθ,ισα ωμοΧογησα. ^ ^ 

2θ (2nd hand) Αύρ,λία Τ^ροντ,^ρον τΐασμψος η ^ροκ.ψίνη .θ.μψ τψ eXevftep.av κα. *νδο.ω 
πάσι rots .νγ.γραμμίνοις , , , - ' ' ' 

as npOKeiTm. Μρήλως Αωρόθ,ος Σ.ρ^νου 6 προγ^γραμμ.νος ανηρ αντης σνν,στψ ττ, yum«t 

μου κα\ iypa^a _ , - 

inip αΐτης γράμματα μί, .18ψΙης. (3rd hand) Μρη\^ος Tmaae« Αμμωνατος μαρτυρώ. 

(4th hand) Αυρήλιος Αμμωνίου _ 

Σα,κράτου/μαρτυρώ. {r^thh^nd) ΑίρήλωςΦηουσιας Αντωνίου μαρτυρώ. (6th hand) Α.- 

ρήλιος Κύριλλος ϋαησίου μαρτυρώ. 
(7th hand) Αίρήλως Ύιμόθ.ος 'Απολλώνιου άττό ηρο€στ<ί,των Έλ,φαντινης μαρτυρώ. 

5. τκαλητι: or perhaps Ίηαλί,ψι. 6. 1. μου for μοι. 9. 1. ^νβδβ/Ιασ^.. Final e Of 

ρβπβσ^ COrr. from α ; 1. (τ^^σ^α. ? ΙΟ. 1. ^^μ^αθαι . . βοίλ^αθ.. II. 1. .λ.υθ^ρουααν. 

Ttwv^els can be read for Ύινισα(ΐς. 

723. Emancipation of a Slave. 

17.3x21-2 fw. A.D. 138-161. 

This document, recording the formal emancipation of a female slave, follows 
the same formula as 722, but is simpler and more compressed. A good deal 
is lost at the beginnings of the lines, including, unfortunately, the details con- 
cerning the λύτρα-, but a comparison with 722 renders the general sense clear 
enough. Cf. the introd. to that papyrus. 

I ["Ετους Αύτοκρατβρο? Καίσαρος Τίτου ΑΙλίου 'Αδριανού Αντωνίνου ^e]- 
βαστοϋ Εύσφονς (2nd hand) Δύστρου α Τνβι α (ist hand) ^u 
Ό^υρύ-Ϋ^^ων troKu τψ Θηβαίδος 


2 €7γ' άγορανομων άφ^ΐκζν €Xev6ipav ύπο Δία Την ' Ηλιον ] Αιο- 

δώρου του Άγαθ€ίΐΌυ μητρός Τσί€ΐ Θίωνο^ Ήρακλείδον 

3 3° letters άπ Όξνρνγ•χων πόλίωί ev άγυια τη]ν ύπάρ)([ον]σαν αντ& 

οίκογβνη ίκ δούλης Αημητροντος 

4 δονλην ^ο letters ]δ€ . . [. γν]ωστηρ τη^ ίλΐνθβρώσζω^ Χαραττίων 


5 S5 letters (and hand) ώ?] (ετώι/) ν ο[νλη\ ποδ(ΐ) άριστ(€ρω) (ist hand) 

ev άγνια Trj avrfj (and hand) δια Χαιρήμ{ονο$) του σνρ άλ{λοις) 

6 5° letters ] 

I. θηβα'ί8ος Pap. 3• νιταρχ^ονσαν Pap. 5• «τν""" Pap. 

2. του seems to have been omitted before ΉρακΚ€ί8ου. The name Τσ€€ΐ occurs also in 

7β. 5 y^ffpos Taeet Καλλίου. 

4. The vestiges following ]Se possibly represent the yv of γνωστψ, the intervening space 
being accounted for by the junction at this point of two selides. Shorter blank spaces 
have been left in the corresponding part of the two preceding lines. In that case ΐστιρ] Be 
γνωστηρ should be read ; but the traces do not suit γν particularly well, and there is no ?στιν 
he in 496. 1 6 where a γνωστηρ is mentioned at the end of a contract. A description of the 
slave and perhaps the amount of the λύτρα were given at the beginning of this line (cf. 722. 
15 sqq.); but ] δέκα is not a possible reading. 

5. After συν αλ{λοις) the papyrus not improbably proceeded eVt ttjs εγκυκλίου ; cf. 96. 2 
(corr. by Wilcken) ό σνρ oX(Xots) enl τη{ς) ενκνκλ^^ίον]. This restoration would accord very 
well with our present explanation of the position occupied by the writers of 48 and 49 
(cf. 722. 19, note); but what exactly διό implies here is uncertain. 

724. Apprenticeship to a Shorthand- Writer. 

I8.3X2I-3 c?n. a.d. 155. 

Contract whereby an ex-cosmetes of Oxyrhynchus apprenticed his slave 
to a shorthand -writer for two years to be taught to read and write shorthand, 
the teacher receiving 120 drachmae in all. The contract was drawn up by an 
unprofessional scribe, and the language is often confused. 

Πα[ν]€χώτη9 και Πανάρη? των κξκοσμητίυκότων ttjs Ό^υρυ-γγζίτων 
π6λ€α)$• δια Τ^μίλλον φίλου Απολλωνίω σημιογράφω γαιρζίν. συνέστησα σοι 
Χαιράμμωνα δοΰλον προί μάθησιν σημείων ων ίττίσταται ό υιός σου 
Αί[ο]νύσιο? €7Γί γ^ρόνον ^τη δύο άπο του (ν^στωτο? μηνο? Φαμ^νωθ τον 

724. CONTRACTS 205 

5 6κτωκαι8€κάτου irovs 'AvT<cvivov Καίσαρος τον κυρίου μισθού του συμπ^φω 
νημ^νου nphs ά\M\oυs αργυρίου Βραχμων ΙκατΙν 4κοσι χωρίί έορτι- ^ 
κων, €i S>u '4σχ€9 τ^ν ττρώτψ 86σιν kv 8ραχμαΪ9 τ^σσαράκοντα, τ^ν 81 
8eυτkpav λήψν τον τταιδδ? άν^ιληφότο? τδ κομ€ντάρ[ι]ον &\ον kv 8ρα- 
χ[/.]αΓ9 τ[€σσ'μράκοντα, τ^ν 81 τρίτην λή>\τομαι kirl τίλβί του χρόνου του 
ΙΟ nac8bs kK ιταντί^ X6you ττ^ζοϋ γράφοντος και άναγ^νώσ[κον]το, άμψπτω^^ 
τά9 {81} λοίττά? 8ραχμ^9 τ^σσαράκοντα. kL• 8\ kvTh του χ[ρ]όνου αύτίν 
άπαρτίσν^ ούκ kκδiioμat τ^ν προκβιμίνην ιτροθ^σμ[ί]αν, ούκ kiSpTOS 
μα kvThl του χρόνου Thv παΐ8α άποστταν, παραμ^ν^ΐ 8ί σ[ο]ι μ€Τ^ [Tb]v χρ6[νον 

oaas , 

kkv άργήστ) ήμ€ρα, ή μήνα?, {^ουή ιη Λύτοκράτορο? Καίσαρος Τίτου 

Αίλίου Ά8ριανοϋ 
15 Άντωνπνου Χφαστοϋ Εύσφου? Φαμ^νωθ €. 

3. σ of σον corr. from μ. 7• Χ of 8ραχμα^: corr. from γ. 9• 1• λ-?^"• 1 2. 

ξ of (κ8€ξομαι corr. from χ. 14•»? οί v^epas rewritten. 

vouwll receiver second instalment consisting of 40 drachmae when the boy has learnt 

Pius, Phamenoth 5.' 

6. xcop. eopr--: sc ^Μφά,. (cf. 725. 36-7). though the P^f ^^J^ ,^";^ ?[ P^X^„l, the 
8. κομ.ντάρ[.]ο^: a Graecized form of commenianum seems to be mtended, though 

doubtful . is -ore like^2 ^^ ..rX, which is regularly found in contracts of apprentice- 
Mr. (If e σ 725^q-6^ comes in somewhat awkwardly here after the clause ea. be ^"^ '^•-^. 

payment of the second and third mstalments. 


725. Apprenticeship to a Weaver. 

30-7 XII cm. A.D. 183. 

A contract between Ischyrion and Heraclas, in which the former apprentices 
to the latter a boy called Thonis, probably the ward of Ischyrion, for five years, 
to be taught the trade of weaving. Arrangements are made for the provision 
of wages (after two years and seven months) and clothes for Thonis by Heraclas 
on an ascending scale, and for the case of Thonis' absence from his work for 
more than the 20 days allowed for holidays. Cf. 275, a similar contract with 
a weaver written 120 years previously, upon which the supplements in 11. 1-5 
are based. 

[Ομολογοϋσιν άΧΚήΧοί^ Ίσ]χνρίων Ήραδίωνος 

[μητρο9 άπ 'Οξν]ρύγχ^ων πόλεω? και 

\^Ηρακλα9 ϋαραπιωνος τό]ΰ και Aiovros Ήρακλίί- 

i[o]if /Μ[ητρο9 άπο] Trjs αύτή^ πόλεω? 

5 [yep]5io[y ό μ^ Ισχνρίων €•γ\δζδ6σθαι τω Ήρα- 

[κλα] τον το[ν ]••[•••] οίδελφοΰ 

. [.] . ον Θώ^[ίΐ/ ά]φήλ[ικα 7γ]/οο? [μ]ά6ησιρ τή? 8η- 

\[ό\υμζνη^ \τ^]χνη^ ά,πο ν€ομη[νία9 τον] i^rjs 

μ[η]ρο9 Φαωφ[ι] iiri \p6vov ίτη πί[ντ€, κ]αι πάρ- 
ιο i^€i αύτον προσ^δρ^ύοντα τω διδασκάλω 

ΙτΓί τον δηλο[νμ€]νον χρ[6]νον καβ' ίκάστην 

ήμβραν άπο άν[ατολή^] ή[λίου] μ^χρι δύσ^ω^, 

ποωνντα πάντ\α τα ίπιταχθ]ησ6μ€να [α]ύτω 

ύπο τον αύτον δ[ιδασκάλ]ον ώί ίπι των ομοί- 
ΐζ ων μαθητών, [τρξφόμΥνον ύπο τον Ίσχν- 

[ρί]ωνο9. κ[αί τα μ^ν] πρώτα €τη δύο 

και μήνας επτά τον τρίτον ίνιαυτον 

ούδζν δώσΐΐ ύπ\ρ μισθον τον παιδος ό Ήρα- 

κλάς, τοΪ9 δζ λοιποΐς μησι πίντ€ τον αύ- 
2θ τον τρίτου kviavTov χορηγήσει ό Ήρα- 

κλά? νπ\ρ μισθών τον αύτον μαθητον 
. κατα μήνα δραχμάς δξκάδνο κ[α]ι τω τε- 

725. CONTRACTS 207 

τάρτω kviavT(u ομοίως κατά *μηνα 
νπίρ μισθών δραχμάς δίκάζξ καΙ τω 
25 π€μπτω ίνιαυτω ομοίως κατά μή- 
να δρα)(μάς ίΐκοσι τύσσαρας, και κατασκευ- 
άσει ό Ήρακλας τω αύτω μαθητή τω μεν 
ενβστώτί τετάρτω και είκοστω eT€i 
^ι]τωνα άξιον δρα\μων δεκάεξ, τω \δ\ 
3© ίσιόντι κ€ {ετ€ΐ) έτερον χ^ιτωνα άξιον δ[ρα- 
χμων είκοσι, και [τ]ω act (^Vei) ομοίως άλλο[ν 
χιτω[ν]α άξιον δραχμών εί[κ]οσί τε[σσάρων, 
Αί[α]ί τω κζ {ετει) άλλον χιτώνα [ά]ξιον δ[ραχμων 
είκοσι οκτώ, και τω κη {ετει) ομοίως άλλ[ον] χιτω- 
35 *'^ άξιον δραχμών τριάκοντα δύο. αρ- 
γήσει δε ό τταΐς εις λόγον εορτών κατ έτος 
ημέρας είκοσι, ούδενος εκκρονομενον 
τ[ώ]ν μισθών τούτων αφ' ου χρόνου εάν 
χορηγηθί] μισθός^ εάν δε πλείονας τού- 
4© των άργήσυ [ή άσ^θενήσχι η άτακτήστ} ή 
δι άλλην τιν[ά αι]τίαν ημέρας επι τάς 
[ΐ(τ]ας επάναγκε[ς] παρεξει αύτον 6 Ίσχυρί 
ων τω διδασκά[λ]ω ημέρας τταραμενον- 
τα και ποιουντ{α] πάντα καθώς πρόκειται 
45 χωρίς μισθού, τρεφόμενον ύπο του αύτοϋ 
Ίσχυρίωνος, διά το επΙ τούτοις εστάσθαι. 

ό [δ]ε Ήρακλας εύδοκών τούτοις πάσι και εκ 

δειδάξειν τον μαθητην την δηλουμε- 

νην τεχνην εν τω πενταετί χρόνω 
5ο καθώς και αύτος επίσταται και χορηγήσειγ 

τους μηνιαίους μισθούς καθώς πρόκει- 

τα[ί\ άπο του ογδόου μηνός του τρίτου ενιαυ- 

του. και μη εξεΐναι μηδενι αυτών παρα- 

βαίνειν τι τών προκείμενων η ό παραβάς 
55 εκτείσι τω ενμενοντι επιτείμου δραχμάς 

εκατόν και εις τδ δημόσιον τάς ϊσας. κύριον 

το όμολόγημα. (έτους) κδ Αύτοκράτορος Καίσαρος 


Μάρκου Αυρηλίου Κομμόδου Άντωνίνου 
Χφαστοΰ Άρμζνιακοΰ Μηδικού Παρθικού 
6ο ^αρματικοϋ Γβρμαι/ικοΰ Μέγιστου Θωθ Κ€. 

2nd hand Ήρακλάς Χαραπ{ί(ύνο^) του κ{αΤ) Aioi/TO? τίθ^ιμαι το 
ομόλογη μα και ζύδοκω πάσι τοΪ9 ΤΓροκ{ζΐμίνοι^). 
Θώνίί ό κ{αί) Μωροΰς Άρθώνιος €γραψ[α 
ύπ\ρ αύ(τον) μη 6ί(5(ότοί) γράμμ(ατα). 

ι6. τ οί (τη corr. from ξ. 3°• ϊσ^ζ/τι Pap. 34• αλ\[ον above the Hne. 36• 

ζι of άξιον corr. from 80. 52. oyBoov corr 5^• '''""^ Pap. 63. s of μωρονς 

rewritten (?). 

' Ischyrion son of Heradion and . . ., of Oxyrhynchus, and Heraclas son of Sarapion 
also called Leon, son of Heraclides, his mother being . . ., of the said city, weaver, agree 
with each other as follows : — Ischyrion on the one part that he has apprenticed to 
Heraclas . . . Thonis, a minor, to be taught the art of weaving for a period of five years 
starting from the ist of next month, Phaophi, and will produce him to attend the teacher 
for the stipulated period every day from sunrise to sunset, performing all the orders that 
may be given to him by the said teacher on the same terms as the other apprentices, 
and being fed by Ischyrion. For the first 2 years and 7 months of the 3rd year Heraclas 
shall pay nothing for the boy's wages, but in the remaining 5 months of the said 3rd year 
Heraclas shall pay for the wages of the said apprentice 12 drachmae a month, and in 
the 4th year likewise for wages 16 drachmae a month, and in the 5th year likewise 
24 drachmae a month; and Heraclas shall furnish for the said apprentice in the present 
24th year a tunic worth 16 drachmae, and in the coming 25th year a second tunic worth 
20 drachmae, and likewise in the 26th year another tunic worth 24 drachmae, and in 
the 27th year another tunic worth 28 drachmae, and Hkewise in the 28th year another tunic 
worth 32 drachmae. The boy shall have 20 holidays in the year on account of festivals 
without any deduction from his wages after the payment of wages begins ; but if he exceeds 
this number of days from idleness or ill-health or disobedience or any other reason, 
Ischyrion must produce him for the teacher during an equivalent number of days, during 
which he shall remain and perform all his duties, as aforesaid, without wages, being fed by 
the said Ischyrion, because the contract has been made on these terms. Heraclas on the 
other part consents to all these provisions, and agrees to instruct the apprentice in the 
aforesaid art within the period of 5 years as thoroughly as he knows it himself, and to pay 
the monthly wages as above, beginning with the 8th month of the 3rd year. Neither party 
is permitted to violate any of the aforesaid provisions, the penalty for such violation being 
a fine of 100 drachmae to the party abiding by the contract and to the Treasury an equal 
sum. This agreement is valid. The 24th year of the Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius 
Commodus Antoninus Augustus Armeniacus Medicus Parthicus Sarmaticus Germanicus 
Maximus, Thoth 25, I, Heraclas son of Sarapion also called Leon, have made this 
contract and consent to all the aforesaid provisions. I, Thonis also called Morous, son 
of Harthonis, wrote for him as he was illiterate.' 

726. CONTRACTS 209 

726. Appointment of a Representative. 

20 X 9-2 cm. A.D. 135. 

This is an agreement by which Apollonius authorizes another person to 
appear for him in some legal proceedings in which he was concerned, being 
prevented by illness from attending in person ; cf. 97 and 261, which are 
contracts of the same kind. The document is incomplete, the name of the 
representative and the date not having been filled in. 

"Etovs Ιννΐακαι8ζκάτου Αυτοκράτορας ΒίολογισμΙό^ν, αύτόθ^ν συν- 

Καίσαρος Τρα[ι\ανοϋ Άδρίανον ^στακίναι τον 

^φαστου Τΰβ[ι\ kv Όξυρύγ- τον ύπ\ρ αύτοϋ \6yov ποιησό- 

\ων ποΚπ της Θηβαίδος. όμο- 1 5 μ^νον nepl των προς αύτον 

5 λογ€Ϊ 'Απολλώνιος Άπολλων[ί]ον ζητηθησομ€[ν]ων ίπί re τοΰ 

τον ^άί[ο]γζνους μητρός Ταν€χω- κρατίστον ήΎ€μ[6]νος Πζτρωνίου 

ταρίου της [κα\] Ευτέρπης Aioyi- [ΜαμΥρτύνου και τοΰ Ιπιστρατή- 

νους απ' Όξνρύγχων πόλίως [yoju Γίλλίον Βά[σ]σου η κ[α]ί ζφ' ίτ€- 

2 ο ρων κριτών κ[αΙ] πάντα Ιττίτελί- 

άπο της αύτης πόλεως, iv άγνια, σοντα π^ρΐ των [κ]ατοι την σύστασιν, 

ΙΟ ου δυνάμενος δι' ά[σ]θίν€ΐαν €ύδοκΗ γαρ ίπΐ τούτοις, 

πλίΰσαι ίπϊ [τ]ον τοΰ νομον [κυρία ή δμολο]γία. 

'The 19th year of the Emperor Caesar Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus, Tubi , at 
Oxyrhynchus in the Thebaid. Apollonius son of Apollonius son of Diogenes, his 
mother being Tanechotarion also called Euterpe, daughter of Diogenes, of Oxyrhynchus, 
acknowledges to , of the said city (the contract taking place in the street), since 

he is unable through sickness to make the voyage to the assize of the nome, that he 
has forthwith appointed to represent him in the inquiry to be held against him 

before his highness the praefect Petronius Mamertinus or the epistrategus Gellius Bassus 
or other judges, and to carry out everything concerned with the trial ; for he gives his 
consent on these terms. The agreement is valid.' 

I O. Bi a[a\6eveiav : cf. 261. 1 2 δίά yvvaiKelav άσθίνΐΐαν. 

14. τον imp avTov: SO no doubt in 97. 3; the word after Νικάι/ορα there is perhaps 
a patronymic. 

19. Γελλίοϋ Βά[σ]ο-ου: Bassus is mentioned as epistrategus seven years earlier in 
237. vii. 22. 


727. Delegation of the Duties of a Guardian. 

33-3x15^^• A.D. 154. 

This is a deed drawn up by two brothers, who were Roman citizens and 
owned property at Oxyrhynchus, authorizing an agent to act in their absence 
from Egypt for a nephew and niece whose guardians they were. The document, 
which is called a συγχωρησι<ί, is addressed to the archidicastes, whose official 
cognizance of the transaction was desired. Other instances of private contracts 
being sent to the archidicastes are 268, B. G. U. 729 and 741, the juristic 
significance of which is discussed by Gradenwitz, Einfuhrung, pp. 91 -a, and 
Mitteis, Archiv, I. p. 350. It is noticeable that, with the exception of 268, the 
persons concerned in all these cases are Roman citizens, and that the documents 
usually take the form of a συ^/χώρι^σι?. The procedure here is apparently to be 
distinguished from that exemplified in 719 ; cf introd. to that papyrus. 

I[.]/j[.]/i[. .]€i 'Io-_i[5]cuyoof γβνομίνου ^ξηγητον νΐω 

γζνομίνω στρατηγώ τη^ πόλεω? iepeT άρχ^ιδίκασττ] 

καΐ προς rfj €7ημ[€]λία τα>ν yjpr] ματ ιστών καΐ των άλλων 

κριτή ρ[ί]ων δια [Α]η μητριού Ήρακλΐίδου γζνομίνου 
5 e^^y77[r]oi; νιω δΐζτι[οντ]ί τοί κατά, την άρχιδικαστΐίαν 

παρά Γαίων Μαρκίων Άπίωνος του και Διο- 

yei'[o]ys κα\ Άπολιναρίον του και ^Ιουλιανού και ως 

γρηματίζομξν και παρά 'ίΐφΐλα του Ώφζλατο? των 

άπ ^0\^\υ\ρύν^ν πόλεως, συνχωροΰσι οι Γάιοι Μάρκι- 
ιο οί Άπίων 6 και Αιογίνης και Άπολινάριος ό και 'Ιουλιανός 

ου δυν[ά]μ€νοι κατά το παρόν τον h Αϊγυπτον πλουν ποι- 

ήσασθ[(ϊ\ι συν^στακβναι τον προγίγραμμ^νον Ω,φζλαν 

οντα και των ύπαργβντων αύτοΐς kv τω Οζυρυν^ζί- 

τη νομω φροντιστην και κατά τήνδξ την συνχωρησιν 
15 φροντιοϋντα και ίπιμ^λησόμζνον ων και αύτοι €πι- 

τροπξύουσιν άφηλίκων εαυτών άδέλφιΒών Ούαλίρί- 

ων Θζοδότου του και Πωλίωνος και Άπολλωναρίου 

τη? και Νίΐκαρίτης ^τι Se και άπαιτήσοντα φόρους 

και €γμ[ι]σθώσοντα ά ίάν [δ]ίον ην και καταστησόμ^νον 


20 7r/>oy οθί ear ie?; /cat yej/?y 8ίαπω\ήσοντα oi kav Seov 

fi TTj avTov πίστ€ΐ, Sio τους προ9 τούτοι? οντά? σννχρημα- 
τίζ^ιν τω Ώφζλα έκαστα [τ]ών προκειμένων knir^Xovv- 
τι, και λ[6γο]ν9 ων kav kniTcXiar] κατά μήνα '4καστον 
διαπ€[μ]ψ6μ€νον [αντοΐ]γ πάντα 8e kπιτ€λiσovτa κα- 

25 θα και αυτοί? παροΰσι k^rjv, επεί καΐ ό συνιστανόμβνο? 
Ώψζλα? evSoKei rrjSe Tjj σννχωρήσβι, κυρίων όντων 
ων 'ίγουσι 6 τ€ Άπίων 6 και Αιογύνη? και Απολινάριο? 
ό και 'Ιουλιανό? αλλήλων γραμμάτων παντοίων πάν- 
των. άξ[ι\ον[μεν). (.του? €πτακα[ϊ\δ€κάτου Αυτοκράτορα? Καίσαρο{?) 

3θ Αιλίου ^Αδριανού Άν[τ]ωνύνου Σεβαστού Εύσεβοΰ? 
Μξχξΐρ β. 

and hand 'Αμμώνιο? . . . . α( ) 

5• 1. νΙοΰ δί€7Γ[οΐ'τ1ο?. 6. ο of δίο COrr. from α ? 8. 1. Ώφΐλατος του Ώ. or Ώφΐλάτος 

Ώ. ? ΙΟ. ϊονλιανος Pap. 24. 1• 8ιαπ{[μ]•ψομίνω . . . en irekiaovTi. 

' To . . . , son of Isidorus the ex-exegetes, late strategus of the city, priest, archi- 
dicastes and superintendent of the chrematistae and the other courts, through the deputy 
archidicastes Demetrius son of Heraclides the ex-exegetes, from Gains Marcius Apion also 
called Diogenes and Gains Marcius Apolinarius also called Julianus and however we are 
styled, and from Ophelas son of Ophelas, of Oxyrhynchus. Gaius Marcius Apion also 
called Diogenes and Gaius Marcius Apolinarius also called Julianus, being at present unable 
to make the voyage to Egypt, agree that they have appointed the aforesaid Ophelas, 
who is the agent for their property in the Oxyrhynchite nome, by the terms of the present 
authorization to act for and take charge of their brother's children Valerius Theodotus 
also called Polion and Valeria Apollonarion also called Nicarete, who are minors and their 
wards, and further to collect rents and to make such leases as may be necessary, and 
to appear against persons and to sell off produce as may be needful on his own authority. 
Accordingly let those concerned do business with Ophelas in the discharge of all the 
aforesaid duties ; and he shall forward to the said parties accounts of all his acts every 
month, and shall have power to act in all things no less than they themselves would 
have if present. Ophelas the appointed representative assents to this authorization; 
and all bonds of every kind which Apion also called Diogenes and Apolinarius also called 
Julianus hold of each other remains in force. We request (your concurrence). _ The 
17th year of the Emperor Caesar Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, Mecheir 2.' 

19. καταστησ6μ€νον : for καβίστασθαι in the sense of appearing at legal proceedings 

of. e.g. B. G. U. 613. 14 κατεστημίΐ) eVt θΐη[δώρου, and the frequent instances of κατάστασις. 

21. The construction is here somewhat awkward, the series of future participles which 
depend upon awearaKevai in 1. 12 being interrupted by the parenthetical sentence διό rovs . . . 
σνγχρηματίζ(ΐν . . . eViTeXoCwi, which would better have been kept till the end. 

29. α|[ί]οί(/χίί') : cf. 268. 19 άξιοίμ^ν ώί καθηκ[(]ι, and Β. G. υ. 729. ig where άξιοί{μ€ν) 

Ρ 2, 


stands by itself, as here. WUcken {Archiv, I. p. 176) and Mitteis {ibid. p. 350) both 
consider that the object to be supplied after άξιουμ^ν is σωματισμόν, on the strength of 268, 
where the preceding sentence is iv be rois ττροκΐΐμίνοις ονκ tpean σωματ{ισμός). This was also 
our own view when°editing that papyrus ; but in consideration of the uncertainty concerning 
the meaning of the word σωμαησμός, and the fact that here as well as in B. G. U. 729 
άξιοϋ(μίν) is found by itself, we retain the doubts expressed in the note upon P. Fay. Towns 
33. 18-9 as to whether in 268 άξιοΐ>μ(ν is to be connected with the clause immediately 
preceding. We should therefore prefer to understand some more general term. 

728. Sale of a Crop. 

27 X ιι•9 cm. A.D. 142. 

A contract of a somewhat novel character, called a καρττωνβία, by which two 
tenants sell part of their crops standing, the money to be paid by the purchaser 
within a given time direct to the landlord, who has the same rights of execution 
as in the case of a loan. At the end is an acknowledgement from the landlord 
of the receipt of the money. 

[Έκαρ]πώνησαν Παθώτη? και Λ[ί]βιος άμφ6τ€ροί χρη- 

[ματίζον]τ[€]^ ky μητρο? 'Apa€LTo[s] από κώμης Θώ- 

[σβ€ω9 Aio\ykviL Άμόιτος μητρός Άβ^ΐτος άττο 

Trjs αύτης Θώσβ^ως ά(β ών κ[αϊ] αύτοΙ γ^ωργοΰ- 
5 σ[ί] Άπίωνος Ώρίωνος απ' Ό^ν[ρνγ]χωι/ ττολεω? 

irepl την αύτην Θωσβιν e/c του Xapi^eivov 

κΚ[η\ρου άτΓο άρονρων €ίκ[οσ]ί €Κ του άπο άπη- 

[λίώ]του μύρους χόρτου άρούρας rpeij• €Κ 

γ[€ω]μξτρία9 αργυρίου δρ{ά\χμών διακοσίων 
ΙΟ [έβδ]ομήκοντα ίξ, kni [τ]ω τον {κ€)καρπωνη- 

[μ]€νον έαυτω κόψαι και μ^τ^νίγκαι ο• 

[■π]ου kav αίρήται και τάί του αργυρίου δρα- 

[χ/χάί] διακοσίας έβδομήκοντα e| μ€τα- 

[βαλ€σ]θαι τω προγ^γραμμύνω "Άπίωνι 6ν- 
15 [τ]ι κυρίω του βδάψους ΐντος Έπ^Ιφ δΐκά- 

[της] τοΰ €ν€στώτο9 πίμπτου ^τους 

]^Αντλων€ίνου Καίσαρος τοΰ κυρίου. kav δβ 

728. CONTRACTS 213 

μη άποδοΐ rfj ώρισμύν-ρ ττροθζσμία 

€Κτίσ€ί τα9 τον αργυρίου δραχμάς διακο- 
2θ σ/α? εβδομηκοστά e^ σύι^ ήμιωλία καΐ τ6- 

κον δραγ^μιαίον έκαστη? μνάί κατά μήνα 

'4καστον, της πρά^ξω? ονσης τω Άπίωνι 

e/c Τ€ τον Δωγ^νου? και e/c των νπαργβν- 

[τ]ων αύτω πάντων καθάπ^ρ ky δίκη?. 
25 [κ]νρία ή καρπων^ία. eTovs πίμπτον Αυτοκράτορα? 

\Καίσ\αρο? Τίτου ΑΙλίου Αδριανού Αντωνύνου 

[Χζ\βαστοϋ Εύσφοϋ? Φαρμοϋθι κγ. (and hand) Παθώ- 

[τ]η? και Αίβιο? άμψότβροι ίκ μητρο? 
ApaetTOS {κ)€καρπονήκαμ€ν τω Aioy^v^i 

30 ray του γόρτου άρούρα? τρύ? €Κ γεω/ζβ- 
τρία? φόρου αργυρίου δραγ^μων δια- 
κοσίων όδομήκοντα ίξ ω? πρόκει- 
ται. Διονύσιο? Διονύσιο? '4γραψα 
vnep αύτων μη βίτότων γράμ{μ)ατα, 

35 χρόνο? δ αυτό?. 

3rd hand Απίων Ώρείωνο? Aioyivci Αμόιτο? 

χαίρβιν. (εσγον πάρα σοϋ τα? συνπΐ- 
φωνημενα? ύπίρ τιμή? χόρτου άργυρί- 
[ο]υ δραχμά? διακόσια? έβδομηκοντα 
4θ [e^ κ]αι ούδύν σοι ίνκαλώ ω? πρόκειται, 
[(ετου?) € Α]ντων€ίνου Καίσαρο? του κυρίου 
[Έπε]1φ β. 

20. 1. ημίολία. 32. 1. ΐβ8ομηκορτα. 33• ^• ΔίονυσίΟί Αιονυυίον. 34• ^' ί'^ιίτω»'. 

' Pathotes and Livius, both styled as having Harseis for their mother, from the village 
of Thosbis, have sold to Diogenes son of Amois and Abeis, from the said Thosbis, out of 
the land belonging to Apion son of Horion, of Oxyrhynchus, which they cultivate at 
Thosbis in the holding of Charixinus, consisting of 20 arourae, the crop of hay upon three 
arourae as fixed by a survey in the eastern part for 276 drachmae of silver, on condition 
that Diogenes may cut the crop bought by him and transport it to any place that he may 
choose, and shall hand over to the aforesaid Apion who is the owner of the land the 276 
drachmae of silver before Epeiph 10 of the present 5th year of Antoninus Caesar the lord. 
If he fails to pay it within the stipulated date he shall forfeit the 276 drachmae of silver 
increased by one half, with interest at the rate of a drachma a month for each mina, Apion 


having the right of execution upon both Diogenes and all his property as if in accordance 
with a legal decision. This sale of a crop is valid. The 5th year of the Emperor Caesar 
Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, Pharmouthi 23. We, Pathotes and 
Livius, our mother being Harseis, have sold to Diogenes the crop of 3 arourae of hay as 
fixed by a survey for the payment of 276 drachmae of silver, as aforesaid. I, Dionysius 
son of Dionysius, wrote for them as they were illiterate. The same date, 

Apion son of Horion to Diogenes son of Amois, greeting. I have received from you 
the 276 drachmae which were agreed upon for the price of the hay and I make no complaint 
against you, as aforesaid. The 5th year of Antoninus Caesar the lord, Epeiph 2.' 

729. Lease of a Vineyard. 

21 X 29-7 cm. A.D. 137. 

A contract for the sub-lease of a vineyard for four years from Sarapion, 
who was himself a lessee (cf. 1. 14), to Ammonius and PtoUas. The body of 
the document (11. 1-35) is written in a very small hand in lines of exceptional 
length, of which the first 35-40 letters on the average are lost, while a few 
lines at the beginning are also wanting, being represented only by a detached 
fragment which is illegible and half decayed. 

No extant lease of the Roman period has been drawn up with such 
elaboration of detail as the present document, and though P. Tebt. I. 105, of 
the second century B. C, is equally long its formula is quite different. Of the 
known leases of vineyards C. P. R. 244 is a mere fragment, and P. Brit. Mus. 163 
is incomplete in the most important part. Hence the restoration of the lacunae 
in 729, which was moreover written by a somewhat careless scribe, is far from 
easy, and the sense of some of the provisions is obscure, though the general 
construction and meaning are usually intelligible. 

The rent paid for the άμτΐΐλών, the extent of which does not appear, was 
(11. 36-7) half the vine produce in addition to 50 jars of wine and perhaps 
a sum of money or corn ; but that does not seem to include the rent of a piece 
of dry land which had once been a vineyard (χ€ρσάμπ€λο5, 1. 30). This is leased 
(11. 30-32) for three years, starting from a year after the date of the contract 
itself, and was to be cultivated as the lessees chose with the usual exceptions 
of the more exhausting crops, the rent being 60 drachmae and perhaps half 
the produce. The αμ-η^λών is subdivided in 1. 22 into a κτήμα and a καλαμάα. 
The former term refers mainly to the vines (though including a rose garden, 
V. inf.), the latter apparently to a crop of some kind of reeds ; but the passages 
dealing with the καλαμάα (11. 3-4 and 25-7) are unfortunately very imperfect, 

729. CONTRACTS 215 

and the connexion between the vines and the κάλαμοι is not made clear ; cf. 1. 3, 
note. Lines 5-10 deal with the embankments {χωματισμόή, 11. lo-ii with the 
manuring {κοπρισμόί), 1. ii with the watching of the fruit (όπωροφυλακία), 11. i2-8 
with the irrigation, for which the lessees were to receive a loan of both money 
and cattle, 11. 18-2:2 with the payment of the rent and penalties for failure 
to carry out the terms of the contract. Lines 23-7 regulate the condition 
in which the vineyard was to be delivered up at the end of the lease, while 
11. 27-30 are concerned with the apportionment of the various epya. After a 
section dealing with the lease of the χ^ρσάμττίλος (11. 30-2) follows one concerning 
a rose garden in the κτήμα (11. 32-3), and the lease concludes with the usual 
clause assigning the taxes to the lessor (11. 33-4), and another by which two 
rooms in a farmhouse are secured to the lessees (1. 34). Lines 35-8 contain the 
signature of the lessees, written for them in a large uncultivated hand by 
Ptolemaeus, while in 11. 38-46 is a supplementary agreement in a third hand, 
drawn up a year after the original contract, and acknowledging firstly (11. 38-44) 
the loan of the cattle mentioned in 1. 16, and secondly (11. 44-5) another loan 
of which the previous mention is lost. 

1 [ 6y letters ] . ov και[ΐ5 letters ]ην 5e . [ ] • • • [ ]ανωθ€ 

[ i8 letters ] • . • [ 

2 [ 40 letters ] . άρταβ€ΐ[ ii letters τον eiVi]oi/roy eT0V9 

αγρα[. . . .]ομ€να κατά . . . ήμισυ μ[ άπ€](}γασία9 

κα[ ]•/?[••]• ονται eia- . . ν . [ 

3 [ 39 letters ]ev en πα[ 1 5 letters ] . ν ^νχρτ] . . οντο οί μ^μισθωμίνοι 

το ήμ[ί]σν και δ μζμισθωκως το [e]T€poi> νμισυ την Be κ[ο]ττην τ[.] 
7r^o[y] κa\aμeiav οι αντοι μ€μ[ι- 

4 [σθωμύνοι ^2, letters ]ινικωι/ άπ[ο τον eiaiovTos] 'jjovs enl την λοιπην 

TpieTtav edvnep xpeia [rj]u eis την καλαμονργίαν ίτίρου καλάμου 
παρίξονται eavToh οι μ€μισθωμίνοι τον δίοντ[α 

5 [ ^y letters ]ejei νπο τον μ[€μ]ισθωκ6[τος] ϋαραπίωνος €ίσάξονσι eh το 

[κτ]ήμα ο τ€ {ο} μeμισθωκωs και οί μ€μισθωμ^νοι κοιν[ώ]ς κατά το 
ήμισν τω δίοντι καιρώ και Ιττι την λοιπην τρίτι- 
ο [αν 29 letters οι re μ€]μισθωμ6νοι και ό μeμισθω[κ]ως κοινώς κατά το 
ήμισν άργνρί[ο]ν δραχμάς τριακόσια^, ovnep γονν eισoίσovσι eh το 
κτήμα κατ eTos κοινώς, vπoλeίψovσι 8e τον άναβ€βλημ€νον χονν 


7 [ "^6 letters 8]ραγ^μων τριακοσίων, την 8e άν[ά\βο\ην ποιήσονται anh 

των ίθίμων αναβολών, την Se του άττο βορρά του άργαίου κτήματος 
\ώματο9 ΰ8ροφν\ακίαν μ^χρί του ορου9 

8 [ ^y letters ] τω του άργαίου κτήματος μισθωτοί, τη? κατ €το9 

άπίργασία^ τον αντοΰ γωματο^ kdvmp χρ^ία ην 'ίσται npos μόνον 
τον μ^μισθωκοτα, των του αύτοϋ ν^ωφύτου χω- 

9 [μάτων ^2 letters ] npb{s\9 μόνου? tovs μζμισθωμίνου?, ομοίως και του 

νοτίνου χώματος μ^χρί του 6pov9, του μ€μισθωκότο9 Χαραττίωνο? 
τταρίχοντο? αντοΪ9 κατ eVoy άμισθζΐ όνους δΐκάπ^ντ^ 

ΙΟ [ , άπο 8e του elaiovTOS τρίτου καΐ] εικοστού ίτους kirl την 

λοίπην τρίζτίαν 8ώσουσι τω μ^μισθωκότι κατ €Tos τυρούς οβολιαίους 
εκατόν. την Se αύταρκίαν κόπρον πΐριστΐρών προς κοπρισμον 
του κτή- 

11 [ματος 8ώσουσιν οι μίμισθωμ^νοι κατά το ήμισυ] και 6 μξμισθωκως κατοι 

το €τ[€ρο]ν ήμισυ, ον 8e iav βούληται ό Χαραπίων όττωροφύλακα 
φυλάσσι(ν) τω τη? οπωρας καιρώ φύλακα πύμψζΐ, του όψωνίον οντοί 
ττρος αύτον 

12 [ '^y letters ] μηχανής και της ταύτης κ[. . . .]ας ^σται τα μ\ν ζύλα 

irph? τον ^αραπίωνα, οι 8\ τεκτονικοί μισθοί και ή του τίκτονος 
σύνταζις '4σται προς τους μεμισθωμύνους. kav 8\ καινού 

13 {τροχού 3^ letters ] και 8ωσει τοις αύτοΐς μ€μισθωμ€ν[ο]ις €ΐς λόγον 

προχρξίας αργυρίου 8ραχμας τρισχαλίας, e^ ων ύπολογι(σ)θήσονται 
αϊ 8ι8όμ€ναί τοΐς ύ8ροπαρόχοις ύπίρ ποτισμων του αύ- 

14 [του κτήματος άπο Φαώφι €ΐκα8ος του ίν€στώ]τος 8ζυτίρου και εικοστού 

έτους εως Φαώφι εΙκά8ος του είσιόντος τρίτου και εικοστού έτους 
ακολούθως rj έχει 6 Χαραπίων μισθώσει τ)ν και είναι κυρίαν δραχμάς 

15 [ 3*^ letters ά]ς αποδώσει αύτοΐς τώ μεν Άθνρ μηνι δ[ρ]αχμας διακοσίας 

Τΰβι (διακοσίας) και Μεχεϊρ τας λοιπας δραχμας ε^ακοσίας, τας δε 

επϊ το αύτο δραχμας τρισχειλίας άποδώσουσι εζενίαυ- 
ι6 [τα ^^ letters ]τονσι οΐνον ατόκους, τα {δε) [δεο]ντα κτήνη πάρα τω 

νδροπαρόχω βόας πέντε και μόσχους τρεις παραλή μψονται οι αύτοϊ 

μεμισθωμενοι εν συντιμήσει ττ} είκάδι τον 
17 [Φαώφι του τρίτον και είκοστον έτους, και συ]νγράψονται της σνντιμ[ήσ]εως 

729. CONTRACTS 217 

άπ68οσιν του λήγοντος χ^ρόνου. (αν Se XP^ta γ€νητ€ iripas προ- 

χρήσ€θ^ 8ώσ€ΐ αύτοΐ? ό μξμισθωκώζ, λαβόρτξς καί τάζονται Spa- 
'^ fXi^ 3^ letters ίπάν]αγκον οΰν οΙ αντοί μ€μ[ί]σθωμ€νοι €καστα kiriTeXd- 

τωσαν ώ? ττρόκίται άμ^μπτω? μη8ίν ίκκαιρον kSavTos γ€ίν€σ6αι npos 

το μη καταβλάπτΐσθαί την αμιτ^λον μη8ξ 
'9 [ 35 letters άπ]οδ6τωσαν τω μ€μίσθ[ω]κ6τί τον μ\ν οίνον τταρα ληνον 

viov άδολον έκατβρου μβρον? παρέχοντος παρά. ληνον τον αυτάρκη 

κίραμον, ου δ\ kav μη κατά καιρόν kp- 

20 [γαζωνταί 29 letters ]ομ€νον φυτον το βλάβος διπλούν, τοΰ 5e κατα- 

λιπύν την μίσθωσιν kvTos του χρόνου επιτίμου αργυρίου δραχμάς 
πεντακόσιας και eis το δημόσιον tus iWy χωρίς 

21 [τοΰ την μίσθωσιν μίνειν κυρίαν jf, καΐ η πραξις βστω [τ]ω 

μ[€μι]σθωκότι '4κ Τ€ των μεμισθωμενων αλληλέγγυων Οντων d? 
€κτισιν και (ξ ου kav αυτών αίρηται και kK των υπαρχόντων 
αύτοΐς πάν- 
2 2 [των καθάπερ kγ δίκης, και μετά τον χρόνον παραδότ]ωσαν οι μεμισθω- 
μενοι τ[ο κτ]ημα και την καλαμείαν σύνφυτα και kπιμεμελημεva 
και καθαρά από τε θρύου καΐ βοτάνης και δείσης πάσης και τά 
φυτά εύθαλοϋντα και 

23 [ 37 letters ]τι κεχαρακωμενας και τά [το]ϋ κτήματος χώματα kστε- 

γασμενα και ύδροπεφυλακημενα και ας αν παραλάβωσι θύρας και 
κλεΐς και την μηχανην υ(^)ίή πλην 

24 [ 34 letters ποί\ήσονται τους ποτισμούς τοΰ [κτή]ματος και της καλα- 

μ[είας] πεμπταίους προς άρεσκί[αν] τοΰ Χαραπίωΐ'ος και την τοΰ 
κατά τον ^αραπίωνα οϊνου μεταφοράν άπο της 

25 [ 4° letters ]εινησιν κ[ ] kφ' όσον kvηv - ε . .[ ]νται, 

ετι δε και οι αύτοΙ μ[εμι]σθωμενοι ύπολείψουσι μ[ετ]ά τον χρόνον 
τον τότε της καλαμείας κάλαμον 

26 [ 4θ letters ]γ τω ε^η[ς ]ετι διά το και. [ ]να 

ετερω μισ[Θ ] . €t kπικείμεvqv της κ[α^αμείας κάλαμον 

tv 'π[']ρ[.]ης τοΰ διελθόντος έτους 

27 [ 3^ letters Χα]ραπιων . [ 1 6 letters ]οκειμ[ε]ν[. 14 letters ]ον 

οΐνον [ Ι5 letters ]ον φ μετρώ 7γ[. .] . . ί οιγικον 

τοΰ Χαραπίωνος 


28 [ 36 letters τ]ω /ζΙσω roO κ[τήματο^ την δϊ μη\•)(ανην άναβαλΰ 6 

μζ[μί\σθ(ΰκω^ IScai^ δαπάναι^ άπο μηνός Παχών, την 6e σκαψην ttjs 
πλακάδο? τοΰ νποδογίου ίσται υπό 

29 [τ€ των μ€μίσθωμ€νων κατά το ήμισυ και] ύπο τον μ€μισ6ωκ6το9 κατά το 

€Τ€ρον ήμισυ, την 8k κατ 'ίτο? ξυλοτομίαν και €καστον των κατά 
και[ρ\ον '4ργων ποιήσουσι οι μζμισθωμίνοι ^ττακολουθοϋν• 
3ο [tos του ^αραπίωνος 20 letters ]ouy αντω πάντα γίνίσθαι. μισθώσει 
Se ό μ€μισ6ωκω9 τοΐ? μζμισθωμβνοις απο τοΰ ζΐσι6ντο9 τρίτου καΐ 
ίίκ[ο]στοϋ €Του9 €ΐτι χρόνον 'ίτη τρία την Ιντος πλαστών χ€ρσάμπ€- 

31 [λον ^^ letters ά]ρουρηδον ωστ€ κατ ζτο9 σπξΐραι και ξυλαμήσαι oh 

kav αίρωνται γύνξσι χωρίς ζίσάτζο? και ίχομ^νίου φόρου άποτάκτου 
κατ eroy δραχμών Ι^ήκοντα και ήμισυ μβρος των 

32 [ ^y letters ] . ίν ah ίστιν τροχός ως kav κατ ίτος κοιν6τ€ρον συν- 

φωνήσωσι τον φορον. τον δΐ kv τω κτήματι ροδώνα κατ €Τος ovtos 
τοΰ καρποΰ τοΰ Χαραπίωνος των μ^μι- 

33 [σθωμίνων 2g letters ]τα•[•] τταρίξ της ξυλολογξίας, των κατ ίτος 

πάντων των αύτων άρουρων και τοΰ άμπ^Χωνος όντων προς τον 
"Χαραπίωνα δημοσίων, ος και 'i^u 6 αύτος Χαραπίων 

34 [ 28 letters καΐ παρύξζΐ] ό αύτος Χαραπίων τοις μβμισθωμίνοις προς . 

kvoίκησιv χωρίς kvoικίoυ kv τω kπoικίω καμάρας δύο. κυρία ή 
μίσθωσις. (ίτους) δ^υτίρου και ζΐκοστοΰ Αύτοκράτορος 

35 [Καίσαρος Τραιανοΰ Άδριανοΰ ^φαστοΰ Φαώ]φι le. (2nd hand) Άμμώνις 

Άπολλωνίδου και Πτολλας Λουκίου μξμισθώμζτα τον άνπίλονα €πι 
τα τίσσαρα ίτη 

36 [φόρου της ημισείας τοΰ €κ]βησομ€νου οινικοΰ γ^νήματο? και άπο της 

ήμώ(ν) ήμησίας άλλα οίνου κ^ράμια π^ντήκον- 

37 [τΛ 2θ letters ]α καΐ €κα{σ)τα ποιήσομβν ός πρόκ€ΐτ€. Πτολΐμαΐς 

Ζωίλου €γραψα ύπ\ρ αυτών μη ζΐδότον 

38 [γράμματα, 'έτους δ€υτ]€ρου και ίίκοστοΰ Αύτοκράτορος Καίσαρος Τραξΐ~ 

ανοΰ Αδριανού ^ζβαστοΰ Φαοφι le. (3rd hand) Αμμώνις 

39 [^Απολλωνίδου και Πτολλας Αουκίου €σ]χομ€ν πάρα τοΰ αύ(τοΰ) Hapa- 

πύύ(νος) καΐ ττ} κ τοΰ Φαώφι τοΰ δίυτύρου ξτους Τίτου Αίλίου 
Αδριανού Αντωνζίνου Καίσαρος τοΰ κυρίου βοίΐκα κτήνη μόσχους 
μ\ν τίλξίους 

729. CONTRACTS 219 

40 [ 22 letters βόα^ Se τεΙλεΓα? rpeis πάντα kv σν^ταμήσ^ι αργυρίου 
δραχμών δισχ€Lλίωv τηντακοσίων, dnep κτήνη kndvayKov θρίψομ^ν 

> ν 

τη9 κατ eroy γο• 

41 [vfjs 27 letters ]ων, μ€τα Se τον χρόνον τη? μισθώσίω? αίρίσ^ω? και 

ίγλογή? οϋση? σοι τψ Χαραπίωνι kav μ\ν aiprj την συντάμησιν των 
κτηνών λαβίΐν 

42 [ 31 letters ]t; τψ τότζ kσoμevη? α[ύ]των συντΗμήσ^ω?, κάν μ\ν kXaa- 

σον€9 συντζίμηθτ] άποδώσομ^ν τον h συνττλήρωσιν τη9 ττροκίΐ- 

43 [μ^νη^ συντ€ΐμήσ€ω?, khv δ\ καΐ μ^ζο]νο? άττοδώσπ? ήμ^ν σ[ί> 6] ^αρα- 

ΤΓ[ί]ων το του... υ [ι\σον, khv δ\ αίρώμ^θα άλλάσσζΐν κτήνη η πωλ€Ϊν 
ζξ€σται ήμ€Ϊν /Χ6τά γνώμη? 

44 [ 30 letters τά %«. '4τ[ι δ]^ καΠσχΙομζν kv]eχυpoύμ[e]va άλ[.........]μ€να 

έκατ[ον . . . .]κοντα St μ€τα τ[δί/ χρο\νον τταραδόσωμ^ν τα 'ίσα σ€ΐ- 

τινου αυ . 

45 [ 35 letters* ]ατ[. ...]..•[ ]...[•■]•••[ ^'^°^]F 

δβυτ€ρ[ου Αύτοκράτ]ορο? Καίσ[αρο? Τίτου Λί]λίον 'Αδριανού μντ]ω- 
ν^ίνου Χζ[βαστοϋ 

46 [Ευσφοϋ? Φαώφι κ. ] 

8 1. οϋση, for eVrcu. 9• « Μ""»^^ ^bove the line, ν, of του. corr. from .. μ^ν of 

μ.μ.αθ.μ..ον. corn from κότα. ίο. 1. <6.pov. 13. « of δ.δο;ζ..α. corr. from ο. - of 

νζοηαροχο. corr. from σ. 14. First r of rpcrov corr from δ. ^ of 8ραχμα. corr. from σ. 

1. 8ραχμ1 δ.σχ^'λ.α.. i6. πα of ν8ρο.αροχα> corr. from φν. 17• Τ of y-j- corr. 

from .. 1. ye.,ra. 1. προχρν-^. ^ of δωσβ. COrr. from o. I8 1 22 « .at 

before κάμαρα corr. 23. και before νδροπ. corr. 24. αλαμ[ of καλα/χ[ corr. 2«. . .; 

ΪΓφΤΧ. coir. 30. « of ^.σ^ωσβ. COrr. from ea.. 3t. 1- ^-are.. κα\ o,oMe..ov. 

o. 1. ν;μ.σ^ώΜ.5α r5. aμπeλώ.α. 36. L «JM-"'"^• 37• -' of ηρο.η. corn 1. ω. ^o- 

kL! . Γ ^ίδότω.. 38. 1. Φαάφ^. 39• -«P« -- «-(-) <ταραπ..{.οή above the hne. 

42. 1. (λά(τσονος. 44• 1• παραδώσομει/. ϊσα Pap. 

3. .αΧαμ^Ια^: that a special connexion exists between the cultivation of '^f^^- ^"^ 
vine-growing is apparent not only from the present document (cf. especially U. 22 and 24, 
wherf the Xa is coupled with the <αΧαμ.ία), but from other leases of «^^^o,.» cf^C P. R. 

224. 11-2 ]ων καλαμονργία^ i< κα^.η, . . . τ]ό. αυτάρκη κάλαμοι κα. σχο,,.α, Ρ. Brit. ^US. IbJ. 
22-ς Wheri read κα\ rf,u οδσαρ .αλαμίαν άναχύαομ.ν κατ' ?το, .[Kaarou κα. το,. αμπΙ.\λ<ονα ^c 
2 2 5, wnerc ic / . , . , and P. Tebt. 120. 141 ««' καλα/χουργ»?(σ«) 

^'^'^"'^^"i:;;;/;ara;;x^;r On tie Other Land κάΧαμο. was sometimes cultivated by 
itself 'as' is shown by B. G. U. 558. 13, where a κα\αμία corresponds to an .λα.ω. ct. 
Ρ Brit Mus iQ^ il II and B. G. U. 619. ii. 19 and 776• 10, which mention καλπ^ο. 
?EX?;l'f cLrSeTapparent^^ with κάΧαμί 'ΐ^δ... (P. Brit. Mus. 191• " ; cf. ^^ f- 
ArcLv, i. p. 150). In P. Tebt. 5• i99 '^«^«i"^'« ^^ mentioned as being required tor 


embankments (cf. note ad loc.) ; but though this section dealing with κάλαμος in 729 is 
immediately followed by one dealing with embankments (cf, P. Brit. Mus. 163. 22) the 
καΚαμΐΙα in an άμπ^Κών would Seem to be a crop of reeds planted between or under the vines. 
According to 1. 22 the κάλομΐία equally with the κτήμα had to be handed over σίινφυτα καϊ 

4•Πΐμ(μΛ\ημίνα κ.τΧ. 

5- χουν is to be supplied as the object of etVa|ovcri; cf. 1. 6. In the first year of the 
lease the responsibility for the χωμαησμός was shared equally by the lessor and lessees. In 
the succeeding three years (11. 6-7) the responsibility continues to be equally divided, but 
a payment of 300 drachmae comes in, the nature of which is obscure. 

7-9. Apparently the contract is concerned Λvith the lease of the newly reclaimed κτήμα, 
and the adjoining άρχαων κτήμα was leased to some one else, the μισθωτής of 1. 8. The 
embankment which is the subject of 11. 7-8 probably divided the two κτήματα, and the 
arrangement is that for the ύμοφνλακία Sarapion and the other μισθωτής are jointly re- 
sponsible, but for the άιτΐρ-γασΊα Sarapion alone. For certain embankments of the νιόφυτον 
κτήμα On the Other hand the lessees were responsible, as well as for the ' southern embank- 
ment' (11. 8-9), Sarapion supplying them with 15 donkeys annually, in return for which 
they were to pay him in each of the last three years of the lease 100 cheeses worth an 
obol apiece (11. 9-10). 

lo-ii. ' The necessary amount of pigeon's dung for manuring the vineyard shall be 
provided half by the lessees and the other half by the lessor. Sarapion shall send any 
guard whom he chooses in order to protect the fruit at the time of bearing, being himself 
responsible for the payment of him.' 

12. A new waterwheel {sakiyeh) was required, Sarapion paying for the wood, the 
lessees for the construction. 

13-6. A loan of 3000 drachmae is to be advanced by Sarapion to the lessees, but 
from this is to be deducted 2000 dr. paid to the persons who supplied the water for the 
current year in accordance with Sarapion's lease of the land from them. The remaining 
1000 dr. were to be paid in three instalments in the earlier half of the year. In 1. 15 only 
800 dr. are accounted for, but it is more likely that διακοσιΌϊ has been omitted after Τΰ/3ι 
than that it is to be supplied at the beginning of 1. 15. The whole 3000 dr. were to be 
repaid to Sarapion without interest at the time of the vintage towards the end of the first 
year of the lease. The large amount paid for water makes it probable that this came not 
from a well but from a newly-made channel. For e^ev'iav[Ta in 1. 15 cf. P. Amh. 85. 14, 
86. II, and P. Par. 25. 12. The second of these instances, in which (ξ(νΊαντα follows κατ 
Χτος, shows that it must have meant something different ; and the sense ' annually ' would 
not suit the present passage, for it is clear that the loan which is the subject of 11. 13-6 
refers to a single occasion ; cf 1. 1 7, where it is contrasted with the hepa πρόχρησις. The 
most suitable meaning for ΐξίνίαντα in all these contexts is 'within (or 'for') the whole year.' 
In B. G. U. 920. 18 the editor reads iveviavTa κατ €tos, where too i^ivLavTa was probably 
intended if not the actual reading. 

16-7. With this passage cf. 11. 39-44, which refer to the carrying out of this stipulation. 
The oxen were required for working the waterwheel, and according to 1. 39 were actually 
supplied a year after the date of the lease by Sarapion, but from the present passage they 
would seem to have been deposited with the persons who supplied the water. They were 
to be received ' at a valuation ' and an agreement was at the same time to be made about 
the return of this valuation at the expiration of the lease. The details of the repayment are 
specified in 11. 41-4. 

17-8. The 2000 drachmae for water (1. 14) were probably an annual charge, and 
hence a second loan from the lessor might be required. For this the lessees paid interest, 

if we restore 8ρά^(^μιαΙον τόκην. 

730. CONTRACTS 221 

18-24. 'The said lessees are therefore required to perform all the aforesaid duties 
blamelessly, leaving nothing undone at the right season, so that no damage may accrue to 
the vineyard . . . and they shall pay to the lessor the wine at the vat, new and unadulterated, 
each party providing at the vat a sufficient number of jars, and for every failure to perform 
work at the proper time... twice the amount of the damage, and for giving up the lease before 
the end of the period a fine of 500 silver drachmae and to the Treasury an equal sum 
without affecting the validity of the lease, and the lessor shall have the right of execution 
both upon the lessees who are each other's sureties for payment, and upon whichever of 
them he chooses and upon all their property, as if in accordance with a legal decision. And 
at the end of the period the lessees shall deliver the vine-land and reed-land planted, well 
cared for, free from rushes, grass and weeds of all kinds, and the plants healthy . . . , and 
the . . . palisaded, the embankments of the vineyard firm and watertight, and also any doors 
and keys they may have received, and the waterwheel in good repair except . . . ; and they 
shall irrigate the vine-land and reed-land every fifth day to the satisfaction of Sarapion, and 
shall transfer Sarapion's share of the wine from the . . . .' 

28. The μηχανή is presumably that mentioned in 1. 12, but the technical meaning of 
άναβάΚΚΐΐν here is obscure, πλακά? is a new word meaning the lower part of the wine 
receptacle, which was below the ground level. 

30. The lacuna at the beginning may be filled up ώστε -πάντα άρ(σκόντ\ως \ cf. 1. 24. 

30—2. This χερσάμπβλυς is distinct from the άμπ(λών which is the subject of the main 
contract; cf. introd. ivros πλαστών in 1. 30 seems to mean 'enclosed by a mud wall.' 

32. ροΒώνα: this is the first mention in a papyrus of the cultivation of roses. In 
P. Brit. Mus. 163. 17, where for the editor's άφμ[ο]δι[σί]ων Wilcken {Archiv, I. p. 150) 
Suggested άρ•γ{ών) ρ[ο]δίωι/, the correct reading is ά•γρ[ο\8ρΰων, i.e. άκροδρΰων. 

40-4. The total number of calves to be provided according to 1. 16 was 3, and of 
βόίς 5. Here however the calves were probably 5, for the βόΐς are 3. The cattle were 
valued at 2500 dr. altogether, and at the end of the lease Sarapion had the choice of 
receiving this sum or the animals at a new valuation. If this was less than the former one, 
the lessees had to make up the difference to Sarapion. If the fresh valuation was higher, 
apparently Sarapion paid them the difference. If the lessees wished to change or sell the 
cattle, they might do so with Sarapion's consent. 

44-5. These lines clearly refer to something contained in the main contract, but 
though we should expect a mention here of the χΐρσάμπΐλος (11. 30-2) which was to be 
leased after one year, the remains of 1. 44 suggest something quite different, which must have 
occurred in one of the lost provisions. 

730. Lease of Domain Land. 

I9-5X7-3 <^^• A.D. 130. 

A sub-lease of 5 arourae of domain land at Senepta for one year, at the 
rent of 24 drachmae per aroura, with an extra payment of 4 drachmae. The 
crop specified is grass, while the other provisions follow the usual formulae ; cf. 
e.g. 499. 



Έμίσθωσξ,ν Χαραττίων Ήρώβον 
άττ O^v\pY}yyaiv πόλεως OvaXepis 
^Απολλώνιου άπο κώμης Hepinra 
Πύρστ} [τ]ης Ιπιγονης eis το kvea- 
5 Toy ΐΓ€ντ€καίδζκατον €to9 
'Αδριανού Καίσαρος τον κυρίου 
άπο της άναγρ(αφ)ομ€νη? e/s αυ- 
τόν βασιλικής γης άρούρας π[ίν- 
Τ€ Ικ του Δάμωνος κλήρου, 

ΙΟ ώστ[€] ταύτας ξυλαμήσαι χόρ- 
τω ei[y κοπην κα]ι €π[ινο]μήν, 
φ6ρο[υ] άποτάκτου αργυρίου δρα- 
χμών ίκατον είκοσι και σπον- 
δής των όλων παιδαρίοις δρα- 

15 χμοις τίσσαρας ακίνδυνου 
παντός κινδύνου, των ύπ\ρ 
της γης δημοσίων όντων 
προς τον μΐμισθωκότα, ον και 
κυρίζύζΐν των καρπών 

20 60)9 αν τον φόρον κομίση- 
ται. τής δζ μισθώσεως βε- 
βαιούμενης άποδότω 6 μ€- 
μισθωμύν[ος] τον φόρον τω 
Παΰνι μηνΐ του αύτοΰ eVofy, 

25 ο ^ άν προσοφζίλύση 6 μ€- 
μισθωμβνος άποτ€ΐσάτω 
μεθ' ήμιολίας, και ή πρά- 
ξις έστω τω μεμισθωκότι 
e/c Τ€ του μξμισθωμύνου 

3θ και Ικ των υπαρχόντων 
αύτω πάντων. κυρία ή μί- 
σθωσις. [ίτους] te Αύτοκράτορος 
Καίσαρος Τραϊανού 'Αδριανού 
ϋ^βαστοΰ Άθύρ ιΘ. (2nd hand) 

35 'Απολλώνιου μ€μίσθ[ω- 

[μαι τή]γ γήν [..]..[..]... 
[. . . άρ'\γυ[ρίου δραχμών έκα- 
[τον ύ'κοσι . . . 

On the verso 

ΐ€ (έτους) μί{σ6ωσις) άρουρ[ω\ν e [..]... . ^€ν€π{τα). 

2. 1. Ονά\(ρΙω. 

σΐν€ΐι{τα) above [. .1 

20. ο of τον corr. from α. 

21. e of Se corr. from t (?). 


* Sarapion son of Herodes, of Oxyrhynchus, has leased to Valerius son of Apollonius, 
of the village of Senepta, a Persian of the Epigone, for the current 15th year of Hadrianus 
Caesar the lord, out of the domain land standing in his name 5 arourae in the holding 
of Damon, to be cultivated with grass for cutting and grazing at a fixed rent of 120 silver 
drachmae and 4 drachmae for the slaves for a Hbation on account of all the land, the 
rent being secured against every risk, and the taxes on the land being paid by the lessor, 
who shall also be the owner of the crop until he receives the rent. If this lease is 
guaranteed, the lessee shall pay the rent in the month Pauni of the said year, and the 
lessee shall forfeit any arrears increased by one half; and the lessor shall have the right 
of execution upon the lessee and upon all his property. This lease is valid. The 15th 

731. CONTRACTS 223 

year of the Emperor Caesar Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus, Athur 19. (Signed) I, Valerius 
son of Apollonius, have leased the land at a rent of 120 silver drachmae . . .' 

8-9. βασΐΚικης ... «κ του Αάμωνος κΚηρου : i. e. the land was part of a confiscated 

κΚηρος; cf. 721. 4-6. 

10. ξυλαμησαι χόρτω: cf. 101. II, 280. 12, 15, and 409. 15 where χόρτω is to be 
read for χόρτου. 

13• σπονδής . . . παώαρίοις : for the payment on account of σπονΒη in leases cf. 101. 19 
and 610, and note on 525. 7. In the present case it was for the benefit of the slaves 
employed in the cultivation of the land. 

35. The paragraphus below this line marks the conclusion of the lease, and the 
signature was intended to begin below it. 

36-7. [φό]ρου [άπ\οτά^κ\τον] is perhaps to be read, but does not very well suit the 
remaining vestiges of letters. 

731. Engagement of Services. 

11-7 X 13-4. A.D. 8-9. 

A contract for services to be rendered on certain specified occasions, among 
which are the festivals of Isis and Hera, at a salary of 40 drachmae a year, 
besides an όψώνων of 13 drachmae 2 obols. The commencement of the contract 
is lost, and the nature of the services to be performed is uncertain ; but it may 
be conjectured on the analogy of e.g. 475, P. Grenf. II. 6y, and P. Brit. Mus. 331 
(cf. Archiv, I. p. 153), that the person engaged was an artiste of some kind, 
though to judge from the scale of remuneration, not of a very high class. The 
^document was drawn up by a careless scribe, who makes a number of mistakes. 

σΐ'/ζ[ 20 letters ]?/ κα\ o[ 

σίοί? \τ'^υ ϊνάτου καΧ τριακο(^οψ €ro[i;]s Καί~ . 
σαρο9 μ^χρί• Θωύθ του τρί[α]κοστον erovs 
Καίσαρος €0' ω λιτονργήσω νμ^ϊν κατά μή- 
6 να ίνάττ) και ScKarrj και Είσιοις ημβρα? 

8ύο και Tois dcTTpois "Ηρα? τρις, και ίφ ω kav 
μου χρήοίΡ ^χτ/τε παρ ήμίραν δώσΐ- 

Τ€ μοι άργυ(^ρίου) (δραχμή ν) μίαν 6 βόλους δύο, μισθού τον 
4σταμ€[ν]ου το eTOS άργυ{ρίου) (δραχμας) τ€σσαράκον- 
ιο τα, ΐφ' ω [δ]ώσ€Τ€ μοι κατ όψώνιον άργυ(ρίου) 


8ραγ^μ\α^ δ€κ]ατρΪ9 δύο όβολούς. η? ή- 
μβραί 7][. . . .]e άργ[ή]σω e[/cr]ίσω άργι>(ρίον) δραγ^μην μί- 
αν δυο 6β[ο\ού]^. ή ομ{ομ^ολογία τη? {aJTra- 
ραμονη^ ήδ€ κυρία €[στω ώ? κατακίχωρισ- 
15 μ^νη• {^Tovs) λη [Καίσαρος 

3• 1. Τ(σσαρακοστοΐ) ΓοΓ τρν^α^κοστον. 

' . . of the 39th year of Caesar to Thoth of the 40th year of Caesar, on condition 
that I give you my services on the 9th and loth of each month and for two days at the 
festival of Isis and three days at the time of the stars of Hera ; and if you require me 
you shall pay me i drachma 2 obols of silver daily, or a fixed yearly salary of 40 
drachmae of silver, and a present of 1 3 drachmae 2 obols of silver ; and for every day 
that I am unemployed I will forfeit i drachma 2 obols of silver. This contract of 
engagement shall be valid as if publicly registered. The 38th year of Caesar . . .' 

5-6. For the feast of Isis cf. P. Fay. Towns 118. 13. The star of Hera was another 
name for the planet Venus (cf. Arist. de Mundo, p. 392 a 27 6 τοΰ Φωσφόρου ov Άφρο8ίτηί 
ol be "Hpas npoaayoptvovaiv, Pliny, 11. N. 2. 8, &c.) ; but why the plural αστροις is here 
used is not clear. References to the cult of Hera in Egypt are rare ; cf. 483. 3, note. 

8-9• The 29 days in the year specified in 11. 4-6 seem to be treated as 30, which 
at I dr. 2 obols a day make the 40 dr. 

1 1-2. ηί ήμίραί be e'av would be cxpcctcd, but this was certainly not written. The 
e after the lacuna is nearly sure and this may represent b]e ; but the letter after ημίρας 
if not η must be ν and is certainly neither δ nor f. 

14. There is not room for eV δημοσίω. 


732. Receipt for the Tax on Ferry-Boats. 

1 8-2 X 23 cm. A.D. 150. 

A receipt issued by two farmers of the ώνη ττορθμ'ώων at Oxyrhynchus and 
certain villages to two persons who apparently were ferrymen at one of these 
villages, acknowledging the payment first of aoo and subsequently of loo 
drachmae for φόροί Tiop^^eto?, the total, 300 drachmae, being probably the whole 
sum due from them for a year. This impost, the title of which is new, seems 

733. RECEIPTS 225 

to be a tax upon the profits of privately owned ferry-boats rather than a revenue 
derived from a State monopoly, though the latter interpretation is also possible. 

^Ηλώδωροί 'Ηλιοδώρου καΙ Λ€θντ[α9 Π]ζκνρ[ί09] απ Όξνρνγχ[ω]ι/ πόλ6[ωί 
Τξλώναι ώι/ήί προθμίδων ττόλεω? καΙ Ίσιου Ά . [. . κ]αι άλλων τ[δ] ivearbs 

ιγ (eroy) 
Άντωνίνου Καίσαρος του κυρίου Άχ^ιλλατι Θοώΐ'ίος [κα]ι 'Α7ΓΪτ[ι] Am7[o]s 

άπο rfjs αύ{τή^) 
πολεωί \aipeiv. 'Ισγρμζν παρ ϋμων άψ' ων [ό]0ίλ€Τ€ ήμΐν ύπ\\]ρ φόρου προ- 
6 θμύου Πανκύλζως ΐπι λόγου δραγ^μα^ διακ\οσί]αζ, γίν[ονται) (δρα-χ^μαΐ) σ. 

(ζτους) ιγ 
Αύτοκράτοροζ Καίσαρος Τίτου Αίλίου Αδριανού Άντωνίνου ^φαστοϋ Εύσξβοΰΐ 
Τΰβι κζ. (2nd hand) 'Ηλιόδωρος δ προγξγραμμίνζ? ίσ- 
γρν σύν τω Αξωντατι tcls προ{γζ]κιμίνας 

δραγ^μας διακωσίας, γί{νονται) (δραχ^μαϊ) σ. (3rd hand) AeovTcis Πζκύριος 
ΙΟ ό προγ€γραμμύνο5 'έσχον σύν τω Ήλιοδώρω 
[τ]ά[9 π]ροκιμύνα9 δραγ^μας δι[ά\κοσίας. χρόνος 
ο αυτός, (and hand) 'Ηλιόδωρος 'ίσχον σ[ύ]ν τω Αζον[τά]τι 
τάς λυπα(ς) δραχμας έκα[τό]ν. (3rd hand) Α€οντας €σ[χοι/ σύν 
τω Ήλιοδώ(ρω) ώς πρ[όκι]ται. 

2. 1. πορθμί8ων. ϊσιου Pap. 4• 1• τ^ορθμΐίον, 'J, 1. προγΐγραμμενο!, 8. κ οί κιμ(ναί 

COrr. from γ. g• ^• δίακοσ/α?. 1 3• 1. λοιπά(ί). 

* Heliodorus son of Heliodorus and Leontas son of Pekuris, of Oxyrhynchus, farmers 
of the contract for the tax on ferry-boats at the city, Ision A . . . , and other (villages) 
for the present 13th year of Antoninus Caesar the lord, to Achillas son of Thoonis and 
Apeis son of Apeis, of the said city, greeting. We have received from you on account 
out of the sum which you owe us for the revenue from ferry-boats at Pankulis two hundred 
drachmae, total 200 dr/ Date and signatures of Heliodorus and Leontas, followed by 
their further acknowledgements of the remaining hundred drachmae. 

733. Tax-Receipt. 

12 X 9'7 cm. A.D. 147. 

A receipt for the tax on pigs (cf. 288, introd.) and poll-tax paid by an 
inhabitant of Oxyrhynchus and his son. The payments are no doubt instalments 
of the whole amount due for a year. 



I (erovs:) *Αντωι/€ί[ρον] Καίσαρος τοΰ κυρίου 
Παχών 8. [δ]ίίγρα{ψ€) Αιογ{ίν€ΐ) πρά{κτορι) άργυ{ρικωι/) 
Μ . [. . . .] 7Γλατ(€ία9) Άμόι? ό κ{αϊ) Παπο(γτώή Αιοδώ{ρου) 
ύικ(7]9) [τοΰ] αν(τοΰ) l (erouy) (δραχμην) μίαν (ττζντώβολον) [ήμιωβύλιον), / 
(δρα)(βη) α {ττζντώβοΧον) [ημιωβξλων). 
5 Τ . ρ[. .] . ο[. .]? i'/o(y) μη(τρο9) ΤατΓθ[ντωτος) λαογρα^φίας) 

τοΰ αύ(τοΰ) ι (eroyy) (ίραχ/ίά?) T[ia]a-apas, ύικ(τ]$) α (ττ^ντώβολον) {ήμιωβύλιον). 

2. π of παχών corr. from δ. The following δ is corrected. 

'The loth year of Antoninus Caesar the lord, Pachon 4. Amois also called Papontos, 
son of Diodorus, has paid to Diogenes, collector of money taxes of Μ . . . street, for the 
pig-tax of the said loth year i drachma 5^ obols, total i dr. 5^ ob. Τ . . . , his son, 
his mother being Tapontos, has paid for the poll-tax of the said loth year 4 drachmae, 
for the pig-tax i drachma 5^ obols/ 

734. Tax- Receipt. 

10.4x9-7 cm. A.D. 165. 

A receipt for the payment of i drachma 4 obols by Cleon to an agent 
of the tax-collectors of a subdivision of the middle toparchy. The names of 
the taxes, which are abbreviated γλ~ and σ~, are uncertain, being probably 
both new. 

Ε (βτουί) Αύρηλίων *Αντα>νίνου καΐ Ούήρου των 

κυρίων Χφαστων Φαμζ{νωθ) κζ. δί€γρα{ψ€) Κλάρω 

X^io-TTJ) πρα{κτόρων) άργυ{ρίκων) μί{<Γηέ) τοττ{αρχία$!) Πύτνη Τακολ{ ) 

τ67Γ(ων) δι(α) 
Άμμω{νίου) βοη{Θοΰ) γλυ( ) καΐ συ{ ) e (erovy) Κλ^ων 
5 [. . .]του Τακολ( ) δραχ{μην) μίαίγ) Τ€τρώβολ(ον), 
/ {δραχβη) α {τ€τρώβολον). 

3- The Πΐτρη τόποι are known from 595, but the addition of Τακολ( ), which recurs 
in 1. 5, is new. 




735. Graeco-Latin Military Account. 

12.5 X 16-4 cm. 

A.D. 205. Plate V. 

This is a fragment of a Graeco-Latin register or account, concerning a 
detachment of troops (cf. 43 recto). Lines 5-1 1 contain a copy of a receipt 
in Greek from an optio, or adjutant, to an imperial deputy-procurator for 
50 artabae of wheat paid to a number of cavalrymen, whose names in Latin 
precede. A list of six footsoldiers follows, which was presumably succeeded 
by another receipt in Greek recording a payment to them. There are a few 
Latin letters (apparently belonging to names) from the ends of lines of the 
previous column, and what remains of Col. iii is occupied with more names 
in Latin. One or two of these soldiers' names indicate Hebrew extraction. 

The receipt is dated in the 14th year of a joint reign, which on palaeo- 
graphical grounds is probably that of Septimius Severus and Caracalla. 

Col. ii. 

Col. iii. 

Sqdus [ 

Marrhis Comar[ 
Valerius Isidori 
5 Μαλωχώ? M[. .]i/ai/[o]t; otttlcuv Ovlkt<o- 
pi Κωμαρίνω Καισάρων οικονόμου 
ονικαρίου yaipuv. ίμ€τρήθησαν 
oi προκίμξνοί ίππ€Ϊ9 πραίτων αριθμών 
ύπ\ρ μηνός Θωθ πυρον άρτάβας πξν- 
ιο τη κοντά. (eVoyy) ιδ των κυρίων ^φαστων 
Θ^β ζ. 
item pedites vi Belei 

ad cognlega Claudius 
15 lerraeus 







' Q 2 

lebqel [ 
riex Darichius [ 
20 Sadus [ 
Themes [ 
Salmes [ 
Zebidius [ 
Malichus Sd^ 
25 Psenosirius [ 
Roman[us ?) A\ 
Cumesiu[s\ et Trufon H\ 
lulius . [ 
Etiopius Chu . [ 
30 Pacebius P[ 


6-7. 1. Κωμαρίνον . . . οικονομώ ουικαρίψ. 7• First e οί €μ(τρηθησαν ΟΟΓΓ. from ο (?). 

8. I. πρώτων. 

3-4• The pairs of names here and in 11. 13-7 are placed rather far apart and look 
at first sight as if they were independent ; but with one exception either the second name 
has a genitive termination or the first may be a gentile name, while unless the names 
are connected the number vz in 1. 10 is wrong. The only case in which any difficulty 
arises is in 1. 1 3, where Beleus and Zabdius certainly seem to be separate names ; but the 
distance between them is greater than in any of the other cases. Possibly Gradius and 
Avidus in 1. 16, where again the space is very wide, should also be separated, thus making 
the number 6. In 1. 3 the second name is perhaps Comar\ini ; cf. 1. 6. 

5. Μαλωχώί: hardly Μαλωχά?, though that name occurs in a Palmyra inscription, 
C.I. G. 4497. 

6. Καίσάρούΐ/ οικονόμου ουικαρίου : cf. Β. G. U. 1 56. 3 and I02. I, where οικονόμος is 

probably to be read between Καίσαρο? and ουικάρως. 

14. The marginal additions here and in 1. 19 are obscure; cognlega is perhaps college, 
but what is riex ? The first letter may be a but the second does not at all resemble p, nor 
would apex be a very likely word here. 

736. Private Account. 

i7'3 X 54-3 cm. About a.d. i. 

Of this lengthy account of private expenses parts of seven columns in all 
remain, five on the recto and two on the verso ; the first column of the recto, 
however, which is separated from those following by a broad blank space, is too 
fragmentary to be worth reproducing, and the same may be said of a narrow 
half-effaced column corresponding to this one but written in the reverse direction 
on the back. The remainder is in fairly good condition, but the papyrus is 
broken at the top and bottom, and the short column on the verso is sometimes 
difficult to decipher owing to discolouration. The various payments are 
arranged according to the days of the month, and some interesting items and 
prices occur. 

Col. ii. 

κα. 0α[ ] 

eis [ 15 letters ] . . (δραχμαΐ) 8, 
βα .[...]. .[. .]α0[. . .] Sia 
Ζμ[.] . . s φαιν6λ[ο]υ Κοράξον [δραγ^μαϊ] ι, 
5 yd\y]yv\i8oi ds ταριχ^ξίαν (βραγβη) α [όβολοί δυο), 

736. ACCOUNTS 229 

χαΚκίου μισθού ds βάψαι {όβολοί 8vo?) 

άλδ, ■ {6βολ69?), 

άλ^στρα {ττνρον) {άρτάβη?) α km τψ ιη (τριώβολοι^?), 
βρύων €19 TOVS aprovs {οβολοΙ δνο), 

ο ήττητρα els φαιν6λ{ην) Κορά^ον (όβολ^) {ήμιωβίλιον), 

ds κατανθρωτησμον γνναίκ{οή 

Γ€μ€λλον {τ€τρώβολον ?), 

μύρου eh άττοστολην ταφή? 

θνγατρο9 Φνα9 (τ€τρώβο\ορ). 

5 κβ. kXaiov χο{ρή α {δραχμαϊ) δ {τ€τρώβολον), 
κηρον και ypa^eiov τταιδ{ών) {οβολόή, 
άρτου καθαρού Πρίμα[9] (ήμιωβέλιον), 

eh κ[α]τανθρωπισμον Τύχψ {τριώβολον). 
Mex{eip) θ. [ 20 letters ] {δραχμή) α {τριώβολον) 

3- φ of ]αφ[ rewritten (?). 

Col. Hi. 

Ends of 3 lines. 
I. o\[. . .]ko . [.] άρίσ[τω γ]€ρδί{ου) {όβολόή, 
κρ[. .] .ν . . . {ήμιωβ^λιον), 

25 e/y το ^αραττιΐον {οβολοΙ δύο), 

άρτου καθαρού 7ταιδ{ων) {ήμιωβίλιον), 

ζύτου y[e]pδί{ov) {όβολοΙ δύο), 

ττράσων άρίστω γ€ρδι{ου) {οβολόή, 

irepiaTepas (ό^ολόί), 

^Αντατι {^ραχμαΐ) β {6βολοΙ δύο), 

άνω kv TTJ πόλ(€ί) aXeaTpa άρτων 

{ηυροΰ) {άρταβων) β δι^ ΐΙ]σατο9 {δραχμή) α {όβολοΙ δύο), 
ια. kv 7Γαρ€μβο[λ]ν δια Θ€θδώρου 

ά\€σ[τρα] άρ[τ]ω{ν) {ττυρον) {άρτάβψ) α (τβτρώβολον), 
35 άρίστω [γ€]ρ[δί{ου)] {6βολ6ή, 



aanapay(u{y) [8ί\πνω *Αντ{ατο^) οτ els 

το nepi8[CpTVo{y) Άθη( ) yi/a0eo)(y) {ημιωβίλων), 
καΐ 7raLSapi[oL]s δίπι/ω κράμβη{9) {ήμιωβ^Χιον), 
7Γ ..[.]. . τταιδίω (τιμιωβΐλιον) 

Parts of 2 lines. 

25. Second ι οι σαραπιων corr. from ο(?). 36. First α of ασπαραγω{ν) corr. from δ. 

Col. iv. 

Parts of 4 lines. 
46 iq: προ[σφαγ]ίον [ημίωβίΧιον)^ 

θρν[ων e]/[y] άρτους {όβολοί δυο) {ήμιωβίλωι/). 
ιζ. γάλακτος παιδ{ων) {ημιωβίΧιον), 
άρτου καθαρού (ήμιωβίλιον). 

50 ιη. Χζκούντα παίδ[ων) ίτρίον (ήμιωβΐλιορ). 
ίθ. Τίσάνης ομίρίως) {ήμιωβζλιον). 

κ. όψαρίου (ό/3ολ09), 

άρτου καθαρού {ήμιωβύλιορ), 

e/y κατανθρ(ΰ7Γ{ισμον) Άγτοφ/ίας ?) {όβολοΙ δύο), 
55 καΐ €t9 Ταπτολλοΰτος Καικί\{ίου ?) (τριώβολοιή, 

yeveaioLS Τρυφάτος στ€φά(νωρ) (οβολοΙ δύο), 
γ€{νήσίοΐ5 [.].[.].. ω( ) στζφά{νων) {όβολοϊ δύο), 
κα. p6as παιδ{ωιή [ ] (όβολό?), 

παιγνίω[ν) και ζΊτουρια^ν) παίδ{α>ν) {ήμιωβύλων), 
6ο ζύτου (τριώβολον), 

όψου (όβολόί). 

κβ. 6ψαρί[ο]υ {οβολόή. 

Part of I line. 

50. 1. Σ(κούντω (cf. 1. 81). 54. αντ of αι/τω( ) rewritten. 

736. ACCOUNTS ^31 

Col. V. 



Parts of 4 lines. 
Θαησί? [. . . ή]/Χ<ρων) β [{η€ντώβολθρ), 
μήτηρ [Aμ][^ωvdτo{s) νιχί{ρων) [ 
Τααρτταησι^ ^ΐμ^ρων) [β] 7Γ€ντώβολοΡ, ^ 

Bepov, όμ{οίω9) ήμ<ρων) t {8ραχμαΙ) 8 {6βoλos). 
κ8. dXearpa {ττυρον) {άρτάβη?) α {τβτρώβολον), 
άλμυpί8os μα{ ) β {οβολοί 8ύο), 

λίνου και βαφί8ο9 (o/3oX6s), 

,X.<rrpa {.νρον) 'Μ^β,^) « ^^^ ΘΜ^ρον){.γ<οβοΧον), 

κ'.ρκισ[τ]ρα φα[ι]ν6Χ[ον) {8ραχμη) α {όβοΧοι 8ύο), 

&ρτω{ν) καθαρω{ν) Φα[. • -Μ ) {8ραχμ^) «, 

n^ptarepa^ [πα]ι8{ων) {6βοΧ6^), 

άρτου κ[α6αροϋ ό]μ{οίωή {^μιωβ^Χιον), 

Χ^κούντω παι8{ων) ίτρ[ίον] {ήμιωβ^Χωρ) 

καΐ σ€μι8άρ€ω9 hP^S {ήμιωβίΧιον), 
γάΧακτο, {ημiωβeXωu), 

μύρου €[i> ταφής θυγατρος 
85 [n]a<TLT[o]s Φραχμη) α. 


82. 1. σ€μι8αΚ(ως. 

On the verso opposite Col. v. 
Parts of 2 lines. 

τΓρ\ο]σώαγί{ων) ταΓ? γυναιξί 

LI(L) β ^οβοΧοΙ 8ύο) {^μιωβ^Χιον), 

'° ^χχ ''χ 11. \οβοΧοΙ 8ύο) ^^μι^β^Χ^ο.), 

κόΧΧητρα λυχνίας ν t- 

iSeinuec .[...•]■ ί[ο]^ {oβoXhs) [νμιωβ^Χιον), 



€is κατανθρωτησμον 
95 Λα[ο\8ίκη^ {όβολοι δύο ?). 

[[.]] e/y τα αρτ .[...].... {όβολοι δυο), 

Στράτου 6ίί τη[ν .]€ . απ . S €ίσβολ{ηιή {δρα^μαΐ ?) δ, 

[....] δαπανη{ ) ... τα y [ 

''ίί^[ω]ι/ί e/s τ . . . ρ . . , κίθω{να ?) {δραχμ ?) [. .], 
100 κόλλητρα χαλκ[ίΌ]ν (ήμιωβίλιον). 

'11. ι-95• The 2ist: ... through Zm ... for the cloak of Coraxus, lo drachmae; 
turnips for pickling i dr. 2 obols ; for the kettle, payment for enamelling 2 ob. ; salt i ob. ; 
cost of grinding i artaba of wheat on the i8th 3 ob. ; omelette for the bread 2 ob. ; cost 
of mending the cloak of Coraxus i^ ob. ; for treating (?) the wife of Gemellus 4 ob. ; 
perfume for the dispatch of the mummy of the daughter of Phna 4 ob. The 22nd: 
a chous of oil 4 dr. 4 ob. ; wax and stilus for the children i ob. ; pure bread for Prima 
^ ob. ; for treating Tyche 3 ob. 9th Mecheir ... the loth: ... for the weaver's breakfast 

1 ob. ; . . . for the Sarapeum 2 ob. ; pure bread for the children •| ob. ; beer for the 
weaver i ob. ; leeks for the weaver's breakfast i ob. ; a pigeon i ob. ; to Antas 2 dr. 

2 ob. ; up at the city for the bread, cost of grinding 2 artabae of wheat, through Isas, 
I dr. 2 ob. The nth: at the camp, through Theodorus, for the bread, cost of grinding 

1 artaba of wheat 4 ob. ; for the weaver's breakfast i ob. ; asparagus for the dinner 
of Antas when (he went) to the funeral feast of Athe . . . the fuller ^ ob. ; and to the 
slaves (?), for a cabbage for dinner i ob. ; to the child i ob. ; ... The 1 6th : a relish 
■| ob. ; omelettes for the bread 2^ ob. The 17th: milk for the children |• ob. ; pure 
bread ^ ob. The i8th: to Secundas, a cake for the children i ob. The 19th: barley 
water for the same -I ob. The 20th : sauce i ob. ; pure bread ^ ob. ; for treating Antonia 

2 ob. ; and for Taptollous daughter of Caecilius 3 ob. ; on the birthday of Tryphas, for 
garlands 2 ob. ; on the birthday of . . . for garlands 2 ob. The 21st: pomegranates 
for the children i ob. ; playthings and ... for the children i ob. ; beer 3 ob. ; sauce i ob. 
The 22nd: sauce i ob. ; Thaesis ... for 2 days 5 ob. ; the mother of Ammonas for 
. days . . . ; Taarpaesis for 2 days 5 ob. ; Berous similarly for 10 days 4 dr. i ob. The 
24th: cost of grinding i artaba of wheat 4 ob. ; 2 ... of pickle 2 ob. ; salt i ob. ; 
a needle and thread i ob. ; cost of grinding i artaba of wheat, through Theodorus, 4 ob. ; 
cost of weaving a cloak i dr. 2 ob. ; pure bread for Ph . . . i dr. ; a pigeon for the 
children i ob. ; pure bread for the same i ob. ; to Secundus for a cake for the children 
^ ob., and for dry meal i ob. ; milk -^ ob. ; perfume for the mummy of the daughter 
of Pasis I dr. . . . The loth: ... for the women 2 dr. 3 ob. ; relishes for the women 
on 2 days 2 1 ob. ; cost of tinkering a lamp 2^ ob. ; pulse when . . . was dining here 
I J ob. ; for treating Laodice 2^ ob.' 

7. aXearpa : cf. 1. 10 ήπητρα, 1, 77 Κ€ρκισ[τ]^ρα, 1. 91 κοΚΧητρα, 739. 4 σιτοπόητρα. 

ηπητρη had already occurred in P. Tebt. 120 introd., where it should be regarded as 
a neuter plural, as should also υφάντρα in P. Tebt. 117. 37, &c. 

II. els κατανθρωτησμον: cf. 11. 17, 53, and 92, where the expression recurs, the object 
being apparently always a woman. Neither κατανβρωπισμός nor κατανθρωπίζίΐν appears to 
be otherwise attested. 

28. The ω of άρίστω here and elsewhere is written above the line (so too δίπνω in 



1. 38), but probably the dative singular and not the genitive plural was intended ; a final 
letter is similarly overwritten e.g. in 1. 10 Κοράξου, 1. 56 Ύρνφΰτος. 

36. δτ' els : SC. η\θ€, 

55• ΤΌτΓτολλοΰτοί : SC. κατανθρωπισμόν. This is preferable to reading τα TItoWovtos. 

59. (πουριω(ν) : the word is unknown and the reading quite doubtful, en- may be 

σπ or ei(T. 

84. e[i]r ταφής'. SC. άποστολην ; cf. 1. I3. 

96. The marks at the beginning of the line look more like a deleted letter than an 
abbreviation. The day of the month should have been further away to the left. 
99. Possibly et? τ[ύ]ν . . . , but there is hardly space for [o]. 

737. Latin Account. 

Height 2 2•3 cm. About ad. i. Plate VIII. Col. i. 

An account of wages paid on different days to ' weavers,' ' hired persons,' 
and a ' master ' or * foreman.' The wages, which are reckoned in asses, are at 
the rate of 31 for a weaver, 4 for a ' hired man,' and 6 for the foreman. We 
give the text of two columns, which are contained on separate pieces of papyrus 
but seem to be consecutive ; there is a large blank space after Col. ii, which was 
the end of the roll. A few small fragments of some other columns also remain. 
The account is written in a clear cursive hand which is probably of the reign of 
Augustus, the papyrus being one of a large find belonging practically entirely 
to that period. Points are commonly used after abbreviations (but not with 
a for ass^s) and the numerals of the days of the month, and are not infrequently 
added after words which are not abbreviated. 

Col. i. 

[a{nte) d{iem) . Nonas hi\lias 

[condu\ctei iv 

\ii textor{es) ii 

conductei ii 

5 i}j,x Idus textor{es) ii 

conductei ii 

vii Idus texior[es) ii 

conductei ii 

vi] Idus textor{es) ii 

■3 co[n\ductei ii 
















1 vii 






V Idus textor{es) in 

iv Idus textor{es) Hi 

Hi I{dus] iextor{es) Hi 


a{sses) X s{emis) 

a{sses) vi 

a{sses) X s{emis) 

a{sses) vi 

a[sses) X s[emis) 

a[sses) vi 

Col. ii. 

]«V Idus textor{es) Hi a{sses) χ s{emis) 

magister a{sses) vi 

]i Idus textor(es) Hi a{sses) χ s{emis) 

20 magister a[sses) vi 
a{nte) d{iem) xiix K{alendas) SextiUas 

textor{es) Hi a{sses) χ s{emis) 

magister a{sses) vi 

21. β of sextilias corr. from /(?). 

2Λβ(ίίίί): this abbreviation is common in the Pompeian inscriptions; cf. C. I. L. IV, 
index. The occurrence of asses in an account of this kind is however very singular. 
Presumably the money though reckoned in asses was paid in obols, three of which would 
be the equivalent of 2 asses. 

5. iyx: cf. 1. 21, where xiix is written for xviii; for the sums of asses, on the other 
hand, viii is regularly used. 

17-9. If this column immediately follows Col. i, which from the dates seems most 
probable, there is nothing lost at the beginnings of these lines and / in 1, 19 stands for 

21. Sextilias is a curious form ; the a has been corrected, but was apparently altered 
from another letter, not itself deleted. For the numeral xiix cf. note on 1. 5. 

738. Account of Food. 
13-5 X 10-3 cm. 

About A.D. I. 

A fragment of an account of articles of food consumed on different days ; 
cf. 108. The ends of lines of a preceding column are preserved. 


8ίπνωι ζ' 

739. ACCOUNTS 235 

ΚανωπικΙν άρτί8ια β, 

^^αρ. opi/is σιΒυτη €ξ νδα{τοή α, 

8ίπν(ύ 9• ΙΟ TTTipvyes β. 

5 Sarpea ι, ...••• 

θρίδαξ α. 

'For dinner on the 5th a Canopic Uver; for dinner on the 6th 10 oysters, i lettuce; 
for dinner on the 7th 2 small loaves, i bird . . . from the water, 2 snipe (?). 

9. σώυτί) is a new word. The nripvyes were probably smaller than the 3pm. 

739. Private Account. 

32 x10 m. About A.D. I. 

A private account for a month, reckoned in silver drachmae and copper 
obols. Lines i-a mention a receipt, 11. 3-22 give an account of expenditure 
for various purposes. The account is written on the verso, the recto bemg blank. 

"Εχξί Ίσα? παρά 'Απολλωνίο[υ 
άπο Κννου {δραχμά?) μ . [ 
L• δα{7Γάνηή' τι{μηή χι{ ) [Ν]€χθ€ντι {δραχμαΐ) κη, 
σ€ΐτοποήτρων (δραχμή) α {τ^τρώβολον), 
5 ^Ιλαίου {^ραχμαΐ) δ {όβολοί δύό).'^ 

δ. άλ€στρα {ττ^ντώβοΧον), 

κονίου €19 'ΐτρ[ο]σφαγίον {οβολόή. 
€. κοφίνων γ {τ€τρώβολον) (ήμιωβίλιον). 

ς. βατανίων {οβολοι δύο), 

ΙΟ ττροσφαγίου οίκοδ{6μον) [οβολόή, 

kXaiov xovs {δραχμαϊ) δ {όβολοΙ δύο). / μ {τριώβολορ) [ήμιωβίλιον). 
ζ. προσφαγιον οίκοδ{6μου) {οβολόή. 
θ. kpyarov {τ€τρώβολον ?), 

οΙκοδ{όμον) πρ{οσφαγ(ον) {οβολόή, 
15 τ€Κτον[ος • ] 

ιγ. τι{μήή ^λα[ίου] {δραχμαϊ)] δ {τριώβολον ?), 


νορψνρα? [δραχμαΐ) κ, 

στήμορ[ος its γνναι]κ[€Ϊ]ον 
ίμάτΐΐ[ον . ] 

2 ο ΦίΧονταρίω [••]•[•]••[••]• ^ • [ 

κβ. rc(/i^s) ekcuov [{βραχμαϊ) S] {οβοΧοΙ δνό\ 

5- This line enclosed in rotmd brackets. 7. 1. πρ[ο]σφάγ4ον. 

' Isas has received firom Apollonius, an inhabitant of Ολτιηε, 4[.l drachmae. Deduct 
on account of expenses: price of . . . paid to Nechtheus 28 dr., for making bread 
I dr. 4 ob., (for oil 4 dr. 2 ob., erased). On the 4th, for grinding 5 ob., powder (?) 
for a relish i ob. 5th, 3 baskets 4^ ob. 6th, plates 2 ob., a relish for the builder 
I ob., a choQS rfoil 4 dr. 2 ob. Tot^ 40 dr. 3^ ob. 7th, a relish for the builder i ob. 
9fli, for the wrarkman 4 ob., a reHsh for the builder i ob., the carpenter . . . 13th, price of 
oil 4 dr. 3 ob., purple 20 dr., thread for a woman's robe . . . , to Philoutarion . . . 22nd, 
price of ofl 4 dr. 2 ob. Total . . .' 

2. Kwov, if ouiect, is the name of a village, but the writer is careless about his cases 
(cf. L 7), and he may mean k«pm>, L e. Cynopohs. 

4. vetnmsvSirfmm'. cf. the similar fonns αλεστρα (1. 6), ήττητρα, &c. (736. ΙΟ and note 

5. The amount of oil which is not stated here and in 1. 2 1 was no doubt i χονς : 

740. Account of Corn. 

21-2 X 46 cm. About a.d. 200. 

An account of com, arranged according to different villages, apparently 
from the day-book of a private individual rather tlian an oflficial. Of Col. i 
only the ends of lines are preser\'ed, but Col. ii is practically complete, and 
CoL iii has lost onl}- a few letters at the ends of lines. There is also a detached 
fragment (not printed) belonging to another column. 

Cols, i and ii are apparently concerned with com paid out, and the sum 
given in 11. Λ8-9, added to the 30 artabae accounted for in IL 30-1, is subtracted 
firom a previoosly mentioned total, leaving the remainder stated in 1. 32. The 
rest of CcA. m deals with receipts from rents. The papyms provides some 
interesting new information about tlie names and character of different measures 
qS. com, and a curious conversion occurs in 1. 29. On the verso are copies of 



petitions to Septimius Severus and Caracalla (705), and the 9th year men- 
tioned in 1. 36 of the recto no doubt refers to these emperors. 

Col. i. 

Ends of 13 lines. 

14 [Μβρμίρθων γ]νησίωρ 8η- 

15 [μοσίων joy 3ιδομ€- 

ι6 [u δια γζ]ωργ(ρΰ) Μ€ρμ{βρθων) 

Col. ϋ. 

17 μιας άντΙ μια^ μ^τρω σίτολ{ογίκω "?) Ήρων[. . .] . υ {άρτάβαι) [. . 

ι8 Χζρύφζω^ μ^τ{ρω) Β{ημοσίω) μια[^] άντΙ /itay ψβ[ ) {άρτάβαι) κβ χ(οίνιΚ€ί) ζ, 

19 καί ίδόθησαν vnep φορύτρον 6νη\(ατων) (άρτάβαι) . )((pii^iK€s) γ. 

20 Πέλα' ιδιωτικώς μίτ{ρω) δη{μοσίω) δια Πασαλνμιο[9 

21 γ€ωργ(ον) Πύλα 6ψ{ατος) άπο [άρταβων) κ<ϊ το y {άρτάβαι) η [ήμισυ) 

χ{οίνικζή ζ, 

22 και €δ6θ{η) ύπίρ φορ4τ{ρον) 6νηλ(ατωΐ') και σιτολο[γικο]ΰ και 

23 σίτομζτρικον των ττροκ{^ι μίνων) (άρταβων) η (ήμίσονς) γί^οινίκων) ζ 

(άρτάβης) [ήμισυ τέταρτον) χ(οίνιΚ€9) β. 

24 Παώμβως' ίμ€τρήθ(τ]σαν) σιτολ[6γοΐ9) [ ] • (άρτάβαι) ΐ€, 

25 και ζδ66(ησαν) ύπ(€ρ) φορ€τ(ρου) όνηλ{ατών) και σιτομ[ζτ(ρΐκοΰ) των 

προκ(€ΐμ€νων) (άρταβων) ΐ€ (άρταβ ) . χ(οίνιΚ€ί)] γ. 

26 ^€ν€Κ€λ€ύ' €μ€τρήθ(ησαν) σιτολ{6γοΐ9) θίμα[τος (άρτάβαι)] . , 

2 7 καΐ €δ6θ(ησαν) ύπ(ζρ) σιτολογ(ικοϋ) καΐ φορ€τ(ρου) χΐ^οίνικί?) [.] 

28 y/ άναλώμ(ατο5) ίδιωτ(ικω5) (πυροΰ) (άρτάβαι) νβ δ' \(oiviK€s) β, 

29 at θύματος δημοσίου καθαρού (άρτάβαι) μθ (ήμισυ τύταρτον) x(otj/i/cey) θ. 

30 και ίττράθησαν ώy ίπάνω [δια του] γ Xoyou δζδήλωται 

31 67Γί μηνός Μΐσορη ]^(άρτάβαι) λ]] (πυροΰ) (άρτάβαι) λ. 

Col. iii. 

32 λοιπαι [ί]διωτικως πυρ[οϋ άρτάβαι . . 

33 και kv θίματι ομοίως διδομίνου ύπο γ[€ωργ(ων) 

34 κατά μίσθωσιν [(άρτάβαι) . . 


35 Θώλ0€α)9• €μ€τ{ρήθησαιή Sia ^Hparos γ€ωργ{ον) 06cu[. . . [πνροΰ) {άρτάβαή . . 

36 6 αν{το9) άπο σπβρμ{άτων) θ (erovs) {πνροΰ) {άρτάβαή γ, y" [(ττυρον) 

{άρτάβαή . 

37 Πίλα' h neSiots ^€νοκωμ[.] . . πάρα [ 

38 Αωγίνον^ του ^αραπ{ίωνο?) γ€ω[ργ{ονντο9)] • • • ( ) πζριΐϋλα [ 

39 σα? ^€Ρθκωμ{ ) . . άπο {άρταβων) \ το [ 

4θ Κζσμον)(€ωί' πάρα Παθώτον Μοίμ€σ[.]χ{ ) γζ[ωργ{ονΐ'τος) 

41 {άρονραί) η {ήμισυ τέταρτον) άπο {άρταβων) κη το y [{άρτάβαή θ . . . 

42 πάρα Ήρακλξίβου ίπιτρόπου 'Hp[a]KX[ei]as . . [ ή η- 

43 σπόρησ^ν ΐπΐ Μαγδώλ{ων) κοί{ρη) προ9 Ήρακλζΐ{δην) κατ[ά το {ήμισν) y 

44 προς TTju μήτ{€ρα} των άφη\{ίκων) κ\α\τα το η /ca[i προ^ τού^ 

45 άφήλ{ίκας) κατά το κδ', άβρ6χ(ον) {άρονραή κδ .[..]. \[ 

46 €γ μ€ρ[ο]υ{9) {άρονρων) ις, γβρσου και '^ω{μάτων ?) καΐ αλμ{υρίδο9) 

47 του αύ{τον) [μ]€ρο{υΐ) των άφηλ{ίκων) {άρονρα) α {ήμισν) .[•.]. €πη{ ) γ 

« [ 

48 [..]••[•]•( )Φ]ί•^ )δ'λων/6[ ]..( ){άρτάβαήι.[ 

49 / θ€μα[το]9 {άρτάβαή [.]y {ήμισυ). 

14• Μ^ρμΐ'ρθων (cf. 823) is restored from 1. 16; cf. the position of ΠΑα in 11. 20-1. 
.The genitive Μΐρμίρθων occurs in a papyrus found last winter. 

■γ\νησίων δη[μοσίων: cf. P. Amh. 86. I Ο and note, άρταβιήα and νανβιον are meant, 
though perhaps not exclusively. 

17. μιας άντ\ μιας', cf. 1. 18, and P. Amh. 87. 21-2, note. The meaning here is that 
half the artabae were paid on one measure (the name of which is lost in 11. 14-6), half on 
the measure σίτ-ολ( ), which is new and which we have supposed to be σιτόΚ{ογικω) on the 

analogy of μίτρω άγορανόμικω in 83β. 

1 8. €μβ{ ): this measure is also new. Perhaps εμβ{όλικω), i.e. the measure generally 
used in corn sent by boat to Alexandria. It was no doubt smaller than the δημόσιον 
μίτρον ; cf . 1. 2 1 , note. 

20. Ιδιωτικώς : the point of this remark (cf. 11. 28 and 32) is not quite clear. We 
might suppose that the writer was contrasting the present private payment with other 
official ones in the same account, but from 1. 28 it appears that all the items in Col. ii 
concern his private account, and to assume that he failed to keep official and private 
accounts distinct is not satisfactory. An alternative explanation is to suppose that Ιδιωτικώς 
refers not to the nature of the account but to the character of the corn ; cf. 11. 28-9, where 
an amount of corn which is apparently Ιδιωτικώς is converted into a slightly smaller sum 
θέματος δημοσίου καθαρού, and note ad loc. But since the payment in 1. 19, although 
Ιδιωτικώς, is μ(τ{ρω) δη{μοσίω). Ιδιωτικώς cannot refer to a private measure, and would be 
a curious expression to imply that the corn in question was not καθαρός. 

21. i of 26 artabae is 8§ art., a sum which the writer expresses by 8A art. 7 choenices. 

741. ACCOUNTS 239 

This implies, if his arithmetic is correct, the artaba of 42 choenices, the largest of the 
different artabae in use in Egypt, and in the fourth century called the artaba φορκω 
{μίτρω) (P. Brit. Mus. 125; cf. P. Tebt. I. pp. 232-3). The fact that it is the artaba 
of 42 choenices which is here μίτρω δημοσίω is important, for the official artaba in Roman 
times has been often supposed to be much smaller, though, as we pointed out (P. Tebt. 
t'did.), on insufficient grounds. But it would not be safe to infer from the present passage 
alone that the mention of μίτρω δημοσίω in Roman times always impHed an artaba 
of 42 choenices. 

22—3. These charges for donkey transport, with the σιτολογικόν (a new term, probably 
meaning a bakhshish for the σιτολόγοϊ) and σιτομιτρικόν (also new as an impost for 
measuring the corn), all of which are supplementary of the main payment (cf. 11. 19, 25, 
and 27), are probably included in the προσμίτρούμ^να which occur in the official receipts 
of this period; cf. P. Tebt. I. pp. 41 1-2. 

24. CTtToX(oyois) : this does not necessarily imply that the payment was for taxation 
purposes; cf. P. Oxy. III. p. 251. 

28-9. The sum of the foregoing items, 52^ artabae 2 choenices, is here converted 
into 49I: art. 8 choen. θψατος δημοσίου καθαρού, whatever that precisely means. The 
reduction is probably due to two causes at least, (i) the fact that in the preceding items 
artabae of different sizes were employed, and that some of them were smaller th^n the 
artaba meant in 1. 29, which very hkely contained 42 choenices (cf. 1. 21, note); (2) the 
fact that these artabae Ιδιωτ^κωε) were partially or even wholly not καθαραί ; cf. P. Tebt. I. 
92. 9-11. 

30. The doubtful γ has a horizontal stroke over it and seems to mean ' 3rd '. αυ{τοΰ) 
cannot be read. 

35. Qfw[: θώλθΐωί (cf. 1. 14, note) or at least a place name would be expected. 

41. Since we do not know which artaba was being employed, it is uncertain how the 
writer expressed i art. at the end of the line. 

44. The μητηρ των άφηλίκων, if 'Ιίρακ\(ί(δην) is right in 1. 43, is the Ήρακλεία mentioned 
in I. 42. 

741. List of Articles. 

16-5 X 9*5 cm. Second century. 

A list of miscellaneous articles, containing, as such lists commonly do, 
a number of rare or unknown words. 

Λ6γ(θ9) ΐντοΧικων Evyeviro- ιππικον α, 

[po]y €v δισακιδίω' κίλλάριον TpiKdyvvov α, 

σφυριά διπλή καρύων α, βι . [.]ων αναβολή α, 

άλλα μξίκρα €, προχβίρια β, 

5 γ€ργαθο9 α» ΐ5 ^γ ofy ύ€λα{ΐ) ήμισυν- 

apvaKis α, βίσείί 


ψήκτρα a, ποτηριών δξκατ{ ) δ 7Γθτ( ) α, 

σοΚία αρσενικά ζ€νγ{η) η, βάτξλλαί δ, 

[γν]ναίΚ€Ϊα ζ(νγ{η) <γ> σκοντλία β, 

ΙΟ σανδάλια δνικ{α) β, 20 όξνβαφον [[.]] α. 

7• τ οι ψήκτρα above the line. 1 1, ϊππικον Fap. 15. ϋίλα Pap. 

' Account of articles at order of Eugenetor in a double sack : — i double basket of 
nuts, 5 other small ones, i wicker crate, i sheepskin, i scraper, 8 pairs of men's . . . , 
6 pairs of women's ditto, 2 donkey straps (?), i horse's ditto, i three-flagon jar, i bag (?) 
of ... , 2 hold-alls containing 3 half-sets of glass, 4 . . . cups and i . . . , 4 plates, 
2 bowls, I saucer.' 

4. άλλα(ι) μ(ΐκρα[ι) should perhaps be read, as the writer seems to have a tendency 
to omit final t (cf. 1. 15) and five baskets must be meant; but the neuter may refer to 


5. γΐργαθός is probably for -γνργαθός, meaning a wicker basket. 

8. σόλια : or perhaps aeXia, which however is still more difficult. σόΚιον might be 
a diminutive of σόλος or an adjective from Σόλοι, but neither is very suitable. It is hardly 
likely that the word is connected with στολή, for which σολη was a late Attic form (cf. 
Du Cange s.v.), though some article of attire is evidently meant. Mr. Smyly suggests 
a connexion with the Latin soh'ar, 

10. σανΒάλία may mean 'bands' of some kind, the word being used for a medical 
bandage by Oribasius. But the reading is extremely doubtful ; the second letter could 
be e and of the first only the smallest vestiges remain. 

12. For κΐλλάριον cf. P. Brit. Mus. 191. 9. 

13. αναβολή, sincc it govcms a genitive plural, looks like a receptacle of some kind, 
a sense in which άναβολίδων is found in Macarius, Apophth. Pair. 33 αναβολικών μ^στον 
ψωμιών. In the preceding word the vestiges before the lacuna suit only a round letter 
such as β, θ, ο, or σ ; possibly βίβ[λ]ων. There are two dots like a diaeresis above the t, 
but they are perhaps accidental. 

14. ττροχίίρια are cases or boxes, since they contained glass; but the word is 
apparently new. 

15. Mr. Smyly compares Martial iv. 46. 15 septenaria synthesis. 

17. The cups are divided into two kinds, but what these are is obscure. 

1 8. βάτίΧλαι : probably the Latin patella. 

19. σκοντλία: cf. P. Brit. Mus. 191. 10 and a gloss cited by Du Cange from Cod. 

Reg. 2062 τρνβλιον σκοΰτλον. 



742. Letter of Antas. 

26-5 X 13-7 cm. B.C. 2. 

A letter from Antas to Faustus, chiefly concerning reeds (κάλαμοί), written 
like many other letters of this period in vulgar Greek. 

'Avrds Φ[αύσ\τωι πλζΐστα γαίρζίν. 

παράλαβζ τταρα Πόθου τον κάλα- 

μ[ο]ρ ιτανα[ρ]ιθμωί και άπόστ^ιΧόν 

μ[6\ι πόσα? Βίσμα^ παρ^ίληφζ^ 
5 καΐ 6\k\s avTas e/y τόπον ασ- 
φαλώς ίνα rfj άναβάσξί αύτάς 

άξωμ€ν. napaSos Se tlvl 

των φίλων αριθμώ αύτα? 'ίνα 

■πάλιν 0[ί']λο? Ί]μύν παραδοί 
ΙΟ άσφ[αλώς,] και kdv τι Svvtj 

συ k[. . . ,^ναί μοι 3ο9 ίργασί- 

α[ν ]σα ifie ηγορακύναι 

παρ[α . . . ο]υ την γιλιαν δ^σμην 

(δραγ^μων) δ[ζκάπ]€ντ€. μη άμζλήστ]9. 
1 5 ζρρωσο. 

(eroi/y) κτ] [Κα]ίσαρος Παννΐ α. 

On the verso 

Φανστώί [..... .]eT€VV . ( ) e/y Νίκλη. 

' Antas to Faustus, many greetings. Take over from Pothus the reeds all together, 
and send me word how many bundles you have received, and put them in a safe place 
in order that we may take them on the journey up. Deliver a certain number of them 
to one of our friends in order that a friend may deliver them to me safely, and if you can 
. . . give your attention to it . . . I have bought from (Pothus?) the 1000 bundles for 
15 drachmae. Don't forget. Good-bye. The 28th year of Caesar, Pauni i. (Addressed) 
To Faustus ... at Nekle.' 



743. Letter to a Friend. 

2ΐ•5 X 17-7 cm. B.C. 2. 

A letter in two columns, of which the first is much broken. The greater 
part is concerned with the explanation of the writer's reasons for sending 
Damas, whom he recommends to his friend's good offices. 

Col. i. 

Parts of 16 lines. 
17 ] βζλω 8i σ€ και τον Καίσαρος 

] avayvovvaL, δίΐ yap ere 

Col. ii. 

€i Koi π[ρ]δ9 aXAoyy ef^oj/ πράγμα 
20 βοηθον αύτοΰ y[e]via6aL δια ην 

iyofiiiy) προ9 iarovs φιλίαν. και 

yap eyo) ολθ9 διαπον[ο]νμαι d "EXe- 

vos )(^a\K0V9 άπ6\ζ[σ]€ν, παραγ^νομ^ίνου) 

yap Δαματο^ e/y 'AXc^avSpeiav ήλ- 
25 θαμζν €7Γί Έπαφρόδζίτον και €vpi- 

6η μήτ€ ίίληφω^ μήτ€ 5€<5ωκώ(9). 

ώστ αν τοντό σ€ θίλω γ€ΐνώσκ€ΐν 

ΟΤΙ iyo) αύτω διαστολας δ^δώκβιν 

το βαδίσαι et? Τακόνα χάριν των €Κ- 
30 ψορίων και τα νυν ζΤΓΐΐπβπομφα 

αύτον ττάντα σννλίξαι και nepi πάν- 
των αύτω την ίπιτροπην δίδωκα. 
■ kv ois €αν σον προσδΐηται σννπροσ- 

yeviaOai αύτωι ώ? άνθομολογη{σομζνω) 
35 νπίρ σον οντωί a>s VTT[ep) μον. iv τω δύ 

μ€ π€ρισπασθαι ουκ ήδννάσθην 

σνντνγίΐν Άπο\\ω{νιω) τω Λιβικω ίνα 

αύτω αύτα ταντα νποδί^ω. και σύ 


8\ νπ\ρ ων kav diXj]^ γράφε μοι και άνό- 
4θ κν<ΰ<ί ποησω, Δαμα^ yap μοι άνθωμολ{ογήσατο) 
πάντα, καλώ? 8e yeyovev το τα^ύ 
αυτόν €\θύν, ύφηγήσεται γάρ σοι. 

[σ]εατο{ν) ίπιμξ(λον) ΐν vyiiaivrjs). ίττισκοπίρν) tovs σους 7rai're(s). 
βρρω[σο.] [eTOVs) κθ Kaiaapos Φαω^φή ς. 

20. ί* of ί^ν COrr. 22. 1. ολω?. 23• Ι. άπώλί[σ]ίν. 43• 1• 7ravra(r). 

' . . . Ι wish you and the ... of Caesar to read this (?), for although I (?) have had trouble 
with others you must assist him for the sake of our friendship. I am quite upset at 
Helenos' loss of the money ; for when Damas arrived at Alexandria we came to 
Epaphroditus, and it was discovered that he had neither received nor paid anything. 
I wish you therefore to know this that I had given him orders to go to Takona for 
the rents, and now I have dispatched him to collect them all and have entrusted to him 
the care of the whole matter. Whatever service he may require from you, stand by him, 
as he will agree in everything for you just as for me. Owing to my worries I was unable 
to meet Apollonius the Libyan in order to inform him of this. Write to me yourself about 
anything you want, and I will do it without hesitation ; for Damas has agreed in everything 
with me. It is well for him to come quickly, for he will instruct you. Take care of 
yourself so that you may remain in good health. Look after all your household. 
Good-bye. The 29th year of Caesar, Phaophi 6.' 

18. Some word like οίκονόμον is probably to be supplied at the beginning. 

19. (Ιχον whether first singular or third plural is difficult ; «Γχβί would be expected. 

34. άvθoμo\oyη{σoμfvω)•. cf P. Tcbt. 21. 6, P. Par. 42. 7. 

744. Letter of Ilarion. 

25 X 14-7 cm. 3.c. I. 

A letter from a man who had gone to Alexandria, addressed to his sister 
(who was no doubt his wife), and to two other women, regarding certain domestic 
matters. A curious injunction occurs in 11. 9-10. 

'Ι\αριων{α] Άλιτι τη ι αδελφή ι ττλύστα χ^αί- 
peiv και Βεροντι ττ} κυρία μου καΐ Απολλω- 
νάριν. γίνωσκξ ώ? exi και νυν kv Άλε^αν- 
8pe(C)a {€)σμζν' μη αγωνιά? kav όλως ζ'ισ- 
5 πορεύονται, ίγω kv Άλε^ανδρε{ί)α μένω. 

R « 


ίρωτω σ€ καΐ τταρακαλω σε ^πιμζλη- 

θ{ητ)ί τω παιδίω καΙ kav ζύθύ^ όψώνί- 

ον λάβωμξν αποσταλώ σ€ άνω. kav 

ποΧΚαποΧλων Τ€κτ]9 kav ην άρσ^- 
10 νον άφζ9, kav ην θήλΐα 'ίκβαλξ. 

ζίρηκα9 Se Άφροδισιάτι οτι μή μ€ 

kmXderj^' ττώί δνναμαί σ€ knt- 

λαθβΐν; kpωτω σ€ ονν ΐνα μη άγω- 

15 (eTOVs) κΘ Καίσαρος Παννι κγ. 

On the verso 

ΊΧαρίων "AXiTL άπόδοί. 

2. 1. ΆπολλωναρΙω. 8. 1. σοι. II. Se above the line. 

* Ilarion to Alis his sister, many greetings, and to my dear Berous and Apollonarion. 
Know that I am still even now at Alexandria ; and do not worry if they come back 
altogether (?), but I remain at Alexandria. I urge and entreat you to be careful of the 
child, and if I receive a present soon I will send it up to you. If (Apollonarion ?) bears 
offspring, if it is a male let it be, if a female expose it. You told Aphrodisias " Don't 
forget me." How can I forget you? I urge you therefore not to worry. The 29th year 
of Caesar, Pauni 23. (Addressed.) Deliver from Ilarion to Alis.' 

8-10. eav πολλαπολλωί» t€kt]s is very obscure. If the second person rUr]: is right, this 
passage must refer to the exposure of a female infant. But πολλά would be most extra- 
ordinary, apart from the difficulty of constructing πολλών. If τίκης is altered to τ^κη we 
might suppose that an animal was the subject and divide πολλ[ά) Απόλλων ; but 'Απόλλων 
is not a likely name for an animal. Perhaps πολλαπολλων conceals Άπολλω^ρίοι/ (cf. 1. 2) ; 
for the use of the second person cf. e.g. 295. 7. 

745. Letter to Gaius Rustius. 

ii'i X 18.8 cm. About a.d. i. 

Conclusion of a letter, chiefly concerned with money matters. The writer 
had evidently been in financial dififilculties, and was afraid of their recurrence ; 
but the loss of the beginning of the letter makes the transactions under discussion 
rather obscure. The addressee has a Roman name. 


άδζλφή^ μ[ου ο]'&ον Κ€ράμία βξτί[κοντ]α [7re]uT€ και 8ρα)([μας SiJKa τ[ο]ν 
Se οΐνον ηγόρασα'ϊ €Κ {δραγ^μων) e^, ύπ\ρ ων και 'ίθου χ^ζΐρόγραφορ [διά. 

μοι 7Γ€ρί του αύτον τον Άντάν άττοστήσξΐν δια, το κ . [ ]κ€ναι 

ώ? και νπ€σ^ον δια του ττοΧζίτάργρυ Θξοφίλου, μ[η . ']v€[.] . η[. .]να aVco- 
5 θ€ν γβίνηται πάντα και πάλιν έατούζ άνασκζυάζωμ€[ν] μη οΰση^ 

χρήα9. ουκ οίδα? γαρ πως μοι ίχ^ρήσατο ίν Ό^υρύγχ^οι? ού-χ ώ? λύσα(ν)τι 
αλλ' ώ? τινί ποτζ άποστ€ρητηι μη άποδξδωκότι. €ρωτω οΰν σε 
μη άλλως ποήσαι, οΐδα δ€ οτι πάντα καλώς ποήσίΐς' ου θίλω 
γαρ άμφισβήτησιν προς ae '^χ^ιν φίλον μου 6[ν]τα. ά[σ]πάζον πάντας 
ΙΟ τους σους και σ^αυτοΰ Ιπιμ^λου ΐν υγίαινες. ίρρωσο. 

On the verso 

Ταίωι 'Ρουστίωι [ 

6. υ of ονκ corr. from ι. 

' . . . from my sister 65 jars of wine and 10 drachmae, and you bought the wine at 
6 drachmae, for which you drew me up a bond through Artemas that the said Antas 
would make the repayment because you had ... as you promised through the politarch 
Theophilus, in order that everything may not be completely . . . and we go bankrupt again 
without any necessity. You don't know how he treated me at Oxyrhynchus (?), not like 
a man who had paid but like a defrauder and a debtor. I ask you therefore not to do 
otherwise ; but I know that you will do everything well. I do not want to have any 
dispute with you, as you are my friend. Salute all your household, and take care of your 
health. Good-bye. (Addressed) To Gains Rustius . . .' 

4. πολβιτάρχου : πόΚίΐτάρχαι are known at Thessalonica from Acts xvii. 6 and C. I. G. 
1967, but the title is new in Egyptian papyri. 

The mutilated word before άνωθεν is most likely a perfect participle ; the letter before 
η[ seems to be λ, σ, or τ. 

6. ev Όξυρύγχοΐί: a Village Όξύρυγχα is knowu in the Fayum but not in the 
Oxyrhynchite nome, and it is difficult to believe that the metropolis is not here meant, 
though Όξνρίιγχων or Όξνρνγχιτών noKis is the normal form. The sentence ουκ oldas . . . 
άπο8ε8ωκότι may be interrogative. 


746. Letter of Recommendation. 

232 X 135 cm. A.D. 16. 

A letter from Theon to his brother Heraclides, a basilicogrammateus, 
introducing the bearer, Hermophilus. Theon is perhaps the same as the writer 
of 292, a similar letter of recommendation addressed to the dioecetes on behalf 
of a brother named Heraclides. Cf. also 787. 

Θ^ων ^Ηρακλίίδηι τώί άδ^λφωι 

πλείστα yaipeiv και νγιαίνξίν. 
Έρμόφιλο^ (ό) ά7Γοδ[ι]δον9 σοι την 
ίπιστολήν [^](tt[i] .[..]• κ[. .]/χ . 0[.]ϊ/ρί 
5 [']€ρ^ον, και ηρώτησίν μβ γράψαι σοι. 
[π]ροφ€ρ€ται '^χ€ΐν ΐΓραγμάτιον 
[eu τήι] Κ^ρκ€μούνι. τοντο οΰν kdv 
σοι (1>α[ί]νηται σπονβάσας κατά. το 
δίκαιον. τά δ' άλλα σ€αντον Ιπίμ^λον 
ΙΟ ΐν vyiaivrjs. 

(eTOVs) γ Τιβ^ρίον Καίσαρος Χφαστον Φαωφι γ. 
On the verso 

^Ηρακλΐίδηι βα{σιλικώι) γ/^αμματ^ΐ) Ό ξυ(ρυγχ^ίτου) Κυνοη{ολ[τον). 

' Theon to Heraclides his brother, many greetings and wishes for good health. 
Hermophilus the bearer of this letter is (the friend or relative) of . . erius, and asked me 
to write to you. Hermophilus declares that he has business at Kerkemounis. Please 
therefore further him in this matter, as is just. For the rest take care of yourself that you 
may remain in good health. Good-bye. The 3rd year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, 
Phaophi 3. (Addressed) To Heraclides, basilicogrammateus of the Oxyrhynchite and 
Cynopolite nomes.' 

4. The letters ]σ•τ[ are on a separate fragment, the position of which is doubtful. 

13. There seems to be an ellipse of καΐ after Όξυ{ρνγχίτον), though the fact that 
a basilicogrammateus should have more than one nome under his jurisdiction is 


747. Invitation to a Feast. 

5-1 X 7-3 c^• Late second or third century. 

An invitation to a feast given by a cavalry officer ; cf. 110 and 523. 

Καλύ σ€ <5 {8€κά8αρ)χ{οή ds την ^evi- 
av έαυτοΰ rfj ς Kakav- 
Sais άπο &p{as) η. 

2. vr of eavTov corr. from V. 

' The decurion invites you to his party on the sixth day before the Calends at eight 


(The collations of //. i-xii and the Odyssey are with the text of Ludwich, those 
of //. xiii-xxiv with that of La Roche.) 

{a) Iliad. 

748. ι6•ιχ6.6 cm. Ends of i. 107-116, with occasional stops and elision- 
marks. 108 o]uS[e] τελβσσαί. 1 13 Υ\Κντα{\\ί•ί]στρτ\<ί. Third century, written 
in sloping oval uncials of good size. 

749. iO'3 X 10 cm. Ends of i. 160-176 from the bottom of a column. Second 
century, written in heavy round uncials. 

750. 8 X 6'3 cm. Parts of ii. 57-73. 62 τ\οσσσ\α. β•^ e/xe^je?. d^ eJKcAeue. 
Third century, written in sloping oval uncials. 

751. 19-6 X 9-2 cm. Part of a column containing iii. 30-55, with numerous stops 
and accents, and several corrections (probably by a second hand). '3,η vios. 
40 οφ€]λθ9. First of άγονος above an α crossed out. 47 ayeipa[s corrected 
from eyeipei[y. 48 γ of ανηγ^ς above the line. 50 ττοΚηϊ corr. from ττολίη. 
51 κατηφξίη. ^3 ] [[• •]|φωΓ09. s of 6χ€ΐ? above the line. 54 ^^ o^ χράισμοι 
above τ/ crossed out. Late second or third century, written in a neat 
uncial hand of the oval type. 

752. 11x8 cm. Beginnings of iv. 87-96, with numerous stops, breathings and 
accents. 93 The first hand had 17 ρ a\v μοι ; a second hand seems to have 
corrected ν and has added δβ above μοι. Third century, written in sloping 
oval uncials. 

753. 192 χ6•4 cm. On the recto part of a second or third century account. 
On the verso parts of iv. 364-398, with numerous stops, breathings and 
accents. 369 is omitted, as in A. 378 ^στρατοωι/] [[.]]^' [. 381 ττάρ cn[aia. 
382 ώχοντο t6[e corr. to ωχοντ i]b[e (?). 387 e of €ων above the line. Third 
century, written in sloping oval uncials. 

754. S'5 X 2-5 cm. On the recto ends of 7 lines of a document mentioning 
a ζυμουργ{όί). First century. On the verso a few letters from iv. 532-^^g. 
^^^ τΐ€^€[μιχθη. First century, written in a good-sized irregular uncial hand. 

755. 19 X 6 cm. On the recto part of a document in a cursive hand of the 
early part of the third century. On the verso a few letters from the ends 


of V. 130-173, forming a complete column, with numerous stops, accents, 
breathings, and marks of elision and quantity (all probably added later). 
134 e]^[[e]]ix^i?. 151 e^eva]pL$€v. 153 t of λνγ]ρωι added by a second hand. 
Third century, written in an upright hand of the oval type. 

756. 6-8 X 8-2 cm. Fragment of the bottom of a leaf from a book, containing 
on the recto the ends of v. 324-334, and on the verso parts of 379-390, 
with elision-marks. 332 Kvpaveova-ai. 382 rerjAart. 384 λγ of αλγς[ corn 
388 θ of €v9 added above the line (?). αττολντο. 390 tj of ^ξηγγαλ^ν above a, 
which is crossed through, ξ having been also corrected. Late third or 
fourth century, written in a semi-uncial hand. 

757• 4-3 X 3 cm. Parts of v. 578-586. 582 ey δ. First century, written in 
round uncials. 

758. 9*6 X 1 1 -4 cm. v. 583-596, the lines being nearly complete, from the top 
of a column, with stops, breathings, accents and elision-marks. 583 tAe0[ay]ra. 
586 6e και. 587 ^ιστηκζΐ. 588 ίττττων . . . ireaov ev. Late second or third 
century, written in a neat uncial hand of the oval type. 

759. 127 X 2-9 cm. A few letters from the ends of v. 662-682, from the end 
of a column, with stops (high and low point) and accents. 667 αμ]φΐ9 
€ΐΐοντ[€$, confirming the conjecture of Brandreth. Third century, written in 
a neat upright uncial hand of the oval type. 

760. Fr. (δ) 7-3 X 4-9 cm. Two fragments, the first containing a few letters 
from the beginnings of v. 715-718, the second parts of 720-729. 724 e of 
χρνσζη above the line. First century, written in round upright uncials. 

761. 21 XII cm. On the recto part of an effaced document. On the verso 
vi. 147 and 148, and, after a lacuna which may have contained 2 lines, 
parts of 11. 147 and 149 and another line, the whole being a writing 
exercise. 148 τηλ^θωσα. Late first century B.C., written in a large semi- 
uncial hand. 

762. 19-8 X 8-5 cm. On the recto ends of lines of a list of persons, written 
in a cursive hand in the late second or early third century. On the verso 
the latter parts of vii. 1-35, forming a complete column. 5 ζλατησιν. i6 
bvvTo. 30 μαχησ]ομ€θ. 3 1 omitted. Third century, written in small upright 

763. 24-4 X 10 cm. Part of a leaf from a book, containing on the recto the 
latter portions of vii. 68-101, and on the verso the earlier portions of 69-134, 
with stops, breathings and accents. 72 y of ττοντοττοροισίν added by a second 
hand. 73 Πιταναχαίων. yj t of 4ληί added above the line by a second hand. 
iia Final ι of Πριαμώψ added above the line by a second hand, τον re 
τρομ[€ουσι (a new reading; cf. ν-ηοτρομέονσι in Vindob. 61). 113 ΑχιλΛευ?. 


133 t of oiKvpodii added above the line by a second hand. Third century, 
written in good-sized oval uncials. 

764. 9-6 X 2-8 cm. A few letters from the beginnings of viii. 109-122, with 
stops, breathings and accents. Third century, written in oval uncials. 

765. 8-1 X 5-4 cm. Ends of ix. 320-333, with stops, breathings and accents 
(oxytones having a grave accent on the final syllable). 323 First t of 
ττροφξρηισί added above the line. 324 bi re. 325 ν of tavov above λλ crossed 
out. Third century, written in oval uncials. 

766. 5-8 X 5-8 cm. A few letters from the ends of x. 542-547, from the bottom 
of a column, with occasional accents. Third century, written in sloping 
oval uncials. 

767. 6-6x4.3 cm. A few letters from the ends of xi. 555-561, with stops. 
Second century, written in good-sized round uncials. 

768. 14x12-9 cm. Fragment from the top of a column, containing parts of 
xi. 736-764. 739 Αν{γ]ζώαο. 740 ζ]ανθ[η^^ [.]ya[μη]b[η]v. 75° ατταλαξα. y55 
[a]vTos. ^56 'Βονβρ[α(τ]ιον. y57 Αλ€σι[ου]. 'J5^ Παλλα? Αθηνη. y6o Βονβρασίου. 
Third century, written in sloping oval uncials. 

769. Fr. (a) 4-5x3-1 cm. Two fragments containing a few letters from 
xiii. 308-317 and 342-347, with accents. 316 omitted. 344 γηθησ]€ί€ k.[ 
with V ϊδ[ above λ. Late second or third century, written in a neat uncial 
hand of the oval type. 

770. 4-7 X 7-9 cm. A few letters from the ends of xiii. 372-377 and the 
beginnings of 405-413, with stops, breathings and accents. 372 ττη]ξ€ν. 
374 In the margin €τταίν[€(τομαι and below it αίνίξομ[αί, referring to the 
variants αΐνίζομαι and αΐνίζομαι ; cf. Schol. A αΐνίζομ ' φίρ^ται καΐ δια του ξ 
αΐνίζομαι άντΙ τον Ιτταινίσομαι. Xr]vohoTos αΐνίσσομαι. 4^0 ^^ the margin 
between this and 1. 411 is a critical sign shaped like e). Second century, 
written in round upright uncials. 

771. 14 X 7'8 cm. On the recto beginnings of xv. 736-746, with occasional 
breathings and accents. 740 καικΚιμ[€νοι. 742 at and first ω of μαιμωων 
above e and o. 744 t of κηλειω added later (by a second hand ?). At 
the end a coronis and the title in large letters Ιλιαδ[ο? ο. Late second or 
early third century, written in handsome good-sized uncials of the oval 
type. On the verso 12 nearly complete lines of a money-account in 
third century cursive. 

772. IO-2 X 5-9 cm. Ends of xvii. 353-373, with stops, breathings and accents. 
361 αγ]χηστίν[οί. 363 αν αϊμωτι. 369 Final ι of ΜεΐΌΐηαδηι added above 
the line. 371 α of atBepL corr. from e. Second or third century, written 
in a rather small uncial hand. 



(δ) Odyssey. 

773. Height of roll 24-4 cm. Seven fragments from four columns of a MS. 
of ii, containing a few letters from 304-312, SS9-357 (top of a column), 
ends of 362-374 (top of a column), and parts of 386-410 (a whole column), 
with stops (high and middle point) and occasional accents. 341 above 
eXovJTis is ^,δι[. . .lo. 368 δασ]ωι;ται. 369 ν of ovhe corr. 372 (end of the line) 
]πη or ] . ίη. 401 [ei]5o/>tei;T][[i;]]. 407 omitted. 408 e of Oeivt added above 
the line by a second hand. Αχ]αιο[υ?. Second century, written in very 
large heavy uncials (cf. 661), the letters measuring 5 mm. in height. 

774. 4-5 X 7-5 cm. Parts of iii. 226-231. 227 «π]^?, the e being added by 
a second hand above α crossed through. 228 Oeos €[, the s being corrected 
from ί (?). Third century, written in good-sized sloping oval uncials. 

775. 8-4x4• I cm. Parts of iv. 388-400 from the bottom of a column, with 
occasional breathings and accents. 396 α of αλ€η[ται above η crossed 
through. 399 omitted. Third century, written in sloping oval uncials. 

776. 6-2 X 2-4 cm. A few letters from iv. 520-529 from the bottom of a 
column, with occasional accents. First or early second century, written 
in round uncials. 

777• 12-2 X 8•8 cm. Part of the lower portion of a leaf of a book, containing 
on the recto the beginnings of v. 7-17 and on the verso the ends of 34-44, 
with stops, breathings and accents. Fourth century, written in good-sized 
sloping oval -uncials, in brown ink. 

778. 20-6 X Ι7•2 cm. On the recto a nearly complete column containing 
X. 26-50, with stops (high, middle and low point). 27 Second ι of 
aφpal•ιηισιv added above the line ; similarly final t of δβκαττ/ι in 29, τωι and 
αλλωι in 32. 31 €7Γ€λλα/36. 34 εττ^σσι. 38 βσσι. 42 νΗσομ^θα. ^6 βονλη 
re. Late second or third century, written in handsome round upright 
uncials. On the verso parts of the last 7 lines of a letter in a cursive hand 
of the late third century. 

779• 6-2 X 9•6 cm. x. 134-130 from the top of a column, the lines being nearly 
complete, with breathings and accents. Late second or third century, 
written in a clear cursive hand. 

780. Ι7•7χ8•5 cm. A few letters from the ends of xi. 471-493, and the 
earlier portions of 523-545, from the bottoms of columns, with stops and 
occasional accents. 533 δτ; Τρωεσσι with ων (in a second hand) above €σσι. 
539 βιβώσα. 544 Φ of ΐ'οσφιν above τ crossed out. αφζίστηκζΐ. 545 μιν 
with e above t added by a second hand. Second century (?), written in 
an uncial hand of the oval type and archaic appearance, Ξ being formed H. 


781. 6x3'8 cm. Fragment of a leaf from a book, containing on the recto 
parts of xvi. 243-356, and on the verso the ends of 288-301, with stops, 
breathings and accents (in Hghter ink). 293 6e δαιτα. 295 δ of δου/)€ corr. 
Third century, written in rather small sloping oval uncials. 

782. ']•$ X ^•'^ cm. Fragment of the bottom of a leaf of a book containing 
on the verso parts of xvii. 137-148, and on the recto ends of 182-193, with 
stops and accents (in lighter ink). 187 γενέσθαι. Third century, written in 
rather small sloping oval uncials. 

783. 11-7x4.4 cm. Ends of xvii. 410-428, with stops. 417 αλλωι. Late first 
century B. c, written in good-sized irregular uncials. 



784. Fourteen fragments of a document containing on both sides several 
columns, the recto consisting for the most part of lists of persons, the verso 
of a private account (continued on the recto), which mentions και ττροσ/ (i. e. 
ττροσγίνονται) τίμτί{ή {-πυρον) {ημίσονί) του ττζττραμζνον Αώνμω'Αρ (i.e. ιΐοο copper 
drachmae), [λ]ύτρα Up&v ky Movxecu(s) φ, lyQvliov κ, ζντον^ ι, ωών β κ6, ελαίου 
κο{'π^Κηή α ρπ, οϊνον κ{ζραμίων) β {τάλαντον) α, and payments^ for 'Ελλ-ηνικ5>ν. 
A conversion of silver into copper drachmae occurs, τιμη{β) άργυ{ρίον) (δρσχ- 
μων) η νττ{ίρ) του -rraTpois) 'Βψ (a ratio of 337^: J, which is unusually low; 
cf. P. Tebt. I. p. 580 ^). First century B. C. 

785. 14-7 X 9 cm. An undertaking by a surety to produce a certain individual 
who had been committed to his charge ; cf. 259. After the first 5 lines, 
which seem to have contained the address but are much broken, ^the 
papyrus concludes 6μολο{γώ) 'ηαρζ[ι]ληφ4ναι Β^νωνα 'Hpa/cXeous τάρα σου ον 
και τταρίξομαι h τωι €μφαν€Ϊ eKTOS U[)0U βωμού τζμύνουί ^ΐάσηs σκΙ'πη$. About 
Α. D. Ι. 12 lines in all. 

786. Ι4•3 Χ 8'4 cm. Conclusion of a census-return on oath, written by Aristion 
and Didymus on Tubi 30 of the third year of Hadrian (A. D. 119), the 
portion preserved corresponding to 480. 7 sqq. -npoyey ραμμένων (cf. 480. 15) 
is apparently written dy^y. Below the signatures in two different hands 
are official dockets κατ€χ{ωρίσΘη) Xaoyp{a(poLs) Νό(του) ^ρό{μον) \ρό{νοή^ b 
ai(ro's), and κατζχω{ρίσθη) Aauyp(a</)ots) Ί'η{'ηίων) ηαρ€{μβοληήχρό{νο9) 6 αν{τόή. 
30 lines, which are complete except the first. 

787. 19-9 X 13-3 cm. Concluding part of a letter of recommendation (cf. 746). 
The first 5 lines are m ^στιν ημΙτ€ρος. (ρωτώ σ€ ονν Ιχειι; αυτόν συνίσταμένον 
και h oh kav σοι ττροσέρχηται [[ττοι]] U δικαίου ds την €[μ]ην καταλογψ Troujaeis 
αυτωι. [σ]ύ δ^ inep &ν ^αν αίρί) γράφε. Dated in the second year of Tiberius, 
Pharmouthi 11 (A.D. 16). 9 lines. 

1 The problems of Ptolemaic copper coinage have recently been discussed by Hnltsch \f^^"^-f' 
Kmisl Sachs Ges d. Whs., 1903. We regret to betcompelled to observe that owmg to the adopt on 
ί RfvilSut's long exploded' theoLs based 1>n demotic, and the failure to ^PFeciate the evrdence of he 
Tebtunis papyri vvith the arguments brought against the 120 : I ratio m our App. u to that volume, the 
article s«ems to us a step backwards rather than forwards. 


788. 1 17 X 10 cm. On both recto and verso parts of two columns of a private 
account in copper drachmae. A conversion of silver into copper (δραχμαι) δ 
ΆΤμ (a ratio of 485 : i) occurs ; among the other items are αρταβων τταρη( ) 
Ά, αΐτητηί ρ, τέλος οΐνον 'Βν, μ^μβράδος (' anchovy ') [. Early first century Β. C. 
In Col. i of the recto the first 8 lines are complete, the rest being imperfect 

789. 9-7 X 13 cm. Part of a letter. Lines 2-9 ίδωκά σοι iv Όξνρ[ν{γχωνΥ\ 
Αωννσίου Φανίου iTTiaroKeibiov κίγαραγμ4{νον) ds ib μηνό(5) Καισαρβίου τον 
δίζλθόντος ι (eTovs) ττβρί του ae Ιοΰναί μοί laas ων καΐ avrbs δ Aiovv(aios) ίσγζν 
τιαρ' €μοΰ (ττυρον) {αρταβων) δδ' χ[οινίκων) Τ. The tenth year probably refers 
to Tiberius or Claudius. 11 lines. 

790. 87 X 12-8 cm. Beginnings of 8 lines of an official letter from Dionysius 
to Ptolemaeus enclosing a copy of another letter, ξτηστάται των i -ττάρχων 
are mentioned. Late second century B. c. Written across the fibres. On 
the verso beginnings of 6 more lines in a different hand. 

791. 14-7x6 cm. Letter from Didymus to his brother Apollonius, beginning 
€ΤΤίμ4μνησμαι, Άμμωνίω τωί άδίλφω TTepl άργν(ρίον) (δραχμών) τίσσαράκοντα όκτω 
eis σνναγορασμ(6ν) epiW . . . Addressed on the verso Άττολλωζ^ίωι. About 
A. D. I. Incomplete, the end being lost. 12 lines. 

792. 8-4 X 27-2 cm. On the recto an incomplete account of payments of wheat 
to various persons, containing 19 lines. On the verso another practically 
complete account of receipts and payments, mentioning XiTo[vj}yo(is) ρμ, 
Φωσφόρω και τω άλλω ζ. κ, ναν(λον) '77ορ({ίων) δ L• η, Φωσφόρω κα\ αν . . υ^ ) eis 
6φοδ(ια ) ^ μ. L• perhaps means δραχμαί. 13 lines. The writing on the 
recto is across the fibres, that on the verso along them. First century B. c. 

793. 24 X 11-5 cm. Acknowledgement of payments of wheat et? to δημόσιον by 
various persons άττό δίαστολ{η5} of other persons. Dated in the seventh 
year of Domitian, Caesarius 16 (a. D. 88). Nearly complete. 18 lines. 

794. 21-2 X 15-6 cm. Conclusion of a contract for the sale of i-^g arourae of 
catoecic land, with the signatures, which are nearly complete, and following 
the same formula as 504. The seller was Asclepiades, the buyer a woman 
called Σιντότίζ (?) or Σιντότον, and the price 500 drachmae of silver. The 
land Λvas irepl θ . θώθιν e/c τον Ενφρωνος αλα κλήρου {sic). Written in the fifth 
year of Domitian (a. d. 85-6). '^6 lines. 

795. Fr. {a) 4-5 χ 13-3 cm. Two fragments of a marriage-contract dated in 
the reign of Domitian (a.D. 81-96). The husband is called Heraclides, the 
wife (?) Sarapous. Line 4 yja/xerV φζρνην τΐροσφξρομένην δα[κτνλιον\ χρνσονν 
τ€Γαρτ5>[ν (cf. 496. 6, note), and lower down ]Γ€νμένην κατά τους njs χώρα{9 
νόμουί occurs. Written across the fibres. Parts of 12 lines in all. 


796• 3 X 8'3 cm. Parts of 7 lines from the beginning of a marriage-contract 
written in the reign of Trajan (a. D. 98-117), mentioning iv τταραφίρνοις 
κλαλίων άρ/υρώι/ ^eCyos (?). For κλαλίον = κλανίον ('bracelet') cf. 114. ii. 
Written across the fibres. 

797. 5-5 X 10 cm. On the recto an entry concerning the measurement of the 
land of Thotsutaios, Ιίάφορον σχοι{νίσμον) θοτσνταΐο$ τον "Ωρον τών L• rrJL 
σχ'{ ) τών 77α( ) αϊτό τον te του και ιβ (erovs) irepl κώ(μην) . . . For Ιιάφορον 
σχοίνισμον cf. Ρ. Tebt Ι. ρ. 2 29• The reign is that of Cleopatra III and 
Ptolemy Alexander (b. c. 103-2). 4 lines. On the verso 2 lines from the 
beginning of a document mentioning Nf^e'pa κω{μο)γρ{αμματ€ν$). 

798. 7*8 X 9-2 cm. Conclusion of a letter, ending από ttjs τιμη^ τον άγοραστον 
Ttpos ταΐτα aiiobovvai, ώί δ' αν τταραγένωνται οΐ σιτολόγοί iirl την τταράληψίν των 
σιτικών ά—ομ(τρησομ€ν άμα και ταντσ. ίρρωσο. (Itous) κγ Φαώφι. The twenty- 
third year probably refers to Epiphanes (b. c. 183). 8 lines. 

799• 30-5 X 25 cm. One complete and one incomplete column of an account 
of sums owed and interest upon them, beginning τών L•• ^Αλζξανορηα ασσ\ηκ€ 
(? 1. h ίσχηκζ) xeipo"- Θζωνρ{^} iv τλοίω. Then follows a list of names and 
amounts, e.g. Tavpeivov και Σ^νίίθον (δ/χιχμαι) τ τόκ(ον) Ιω? Μ^σορη (βραχμαΐ) οζ. 
The second column is also concerned with loans ; els ^ανισμόν occurs. 
About A. D. I. 34 lines. 

800. 18-7 X 12-5 cm. Beginnings of 19 lines of an official document enclosing 
a letter of Valerius Athenodorus. Lines 4-10 (which begin a new section, 
as is indicated by the size of the initial letter) Και δια λόγο{ν) (δωδ6κα)/ιτ;ι•ου [, 
(δηλωθη ύιαγζγράφθαι [, νομον τούτον τον τρόττον τοντον [, ττοταμον τω ι^ (erei) 
^Αντωνίνον Καίσαρα r[ov κιρίον, Φηλικο9 τον ηγ€μον€νσαΜΤθ5 ^ργατύα €κ τώ[ν, 
αιρ^θίντων (ζ €νσ\ημόνων νιτό *Ηρακ[λ . . ., ττροχβίία^ (κ τον κνριακον λόγον ci? την [. 
Written about Α. D. 153• 

801. Ι9•2χΐ2'3 cm. Fragment of a notification addressed to Euangelius also 
called Sarapion, strategus, by Diogenes, enclosing an authorization to the 
strategus from the archidicastes in answer to a petition by Diogenes. 
Cf. 485 and 719. In the upper margin is a short note from the strategus 
(cf. B. G. U. 578. i) dated in the second year of Gains Pescennius Niger 
(a. D. 193). The letter of the archidicastes to the strategus is dated 
Thoth 18 (probably of the same year), ^j lines, of which the ends are lost. 

802. 7x7 cm. Parts of 1 1 lines from the beginning of a contract, one of the 
parties being called Σιμάριστοί. Dated in the i[.]th year of Ptolemy 
(Alexander the god) Philometor and Berenice, i.e. B.C. 101-95. On the 
verso a docket. 

803. 15 X 5 cm. Fragment of an official letter or petition, containing 3 com- 


plete and 3 incomplete lines, with traces of a preceding column. Lines 3-5 
και άττό €7ΓΐσΓατ€ΐα9 φ[υ]λακιτώΐ' αντί των κατ iTOs els το δημόσιοι» δμολογονμ4νων 
^ιαγράφζσθαι (^δραχμών) 'Γ άτ:τ]τησθαί βιαιό[τ]€ρον tovs άττο του νομοΰ φύλακας 

νττό τ€ τον [ καϊ] Υΐτολξμαίου του στρατηγού . . . Late first century 

Β. c. On the verso parts of two columns of an account. 

804. Width 9-9 cm. Horoscope dated in the twenty-seventh year of Au- 
gustus, Phaophi 5 irepl ωρα(ν) γ rrjs ημ4ρα{ί) (Oct. 3 (?) A. D. 4). The sun was 
in Libra, the moon in Pisces, Saturn in Taurus, Jupiter in Cancer, Mars in 
Virgo. Taurus was setting, and Aquarius at the nadir. After the astro- 
nomical details the papyrus concludes exet Kivbvvovs' φυλάσσον έ'ω? ημ€ρω(ν) 
μ χάριν του "Apeois. Incomplete, being broken in the middle, i^ lines in all. 

805. 6•6 X 7'6 cm. Conclusion of a letter written on Epeiph 30 of the fifth 
year of Augustus (b. C. 35). Lines 3 sqq. ζητώ γαρ tovs άνθρώτΐονς. iv 6e 
TOts ipχoμ€voLs ■7τλ[ο\'οι? καλαΐ φάσει? (Κζνσονται τταρ' [e]/xoi), ά^ιώ 5e άντίφωνίΐν 
[μ]οι TTVKvOTcpov. άσ-πάζον ττάντας tovs τΐαρ' γιμών κα\ σ€αντη5 ζττιμξΚον IV ύγιαίνης 
ίντν{χοϋσα). €ρρω(^σο). g lines. 

806. 159 ^ 35*4 cm. Account, in two columns, of expenditure of copper 
money for various purposes in the tenth year (of Augustus, i. e. B. C. 31-0). 
Among the items are iepivai QorjpLos 'Δ, Κεφάλα χρνσοχόω Τσ, Σαραττίωνι els 
ττραγματήαν Άφ, δια Trjs Άσκλητηά^ον τpa^τiζηs λόξοις (τάλαντον) α. Complete. 
31 lines. 

807• 1 6-8 χ 2ΐ•ι cm. Fragment of an official list of sheep and goats belonging 
to different persons at a village. Col. i contains the ends of 5 lines. 
Col. ii has ων αντοΰ ίδια ττ, aiy(€s) δ, και 'Αρσινόη5 φορικά μ€, Άχο/>ίΐΊθ5 ίδια μ 
aiyes γ. / ρζα aiye? ζ, γίνεται Trjs κώμης ττρό(βατα) Άσμα άΐγ€S τλτ, &ν 'Αρσινόης 
φορικ(ά) σμ. The sheep which were 'Αρσινόης φορικά as contrasted with 
those that were private property seem to have been subject to a special 
impost {φόρος), payable nominally to Arsinoe (i. e. Arsinoe Philadelphus 
probably), but really of course to the State ; cf the άττόμοιρα in the Revenue 
Papyrus. About A, D. i. On the verso part of an account. 

808. Height ^6 cm. A list of abstracts {^ιαστρώματα) of contracts for loan ; 
cf. 274 and P. Oxy. Π. p. 176. One column, numbered at the top p/xe, is 
practically complete, and there are parts of another in three separate 
fragments. The first entry is [k]v Παλώσ^ι* 6μολ{ογίΐ) "Ap-nakos ''Έipμωy[os 

του ονς άττ' Όζν^ρνγχων) tto'Acws ΥΙανσΊρ^ι ΥΙίτσίριος αττο τη(ς) αν(τής) 

κώμης Παλώσεω? Θμο[ισ€φω) τοιτ(αρχίας) άττ€χ(ζΐν) τταρ' αντον άργν{ρίον) (δραχμάς) 
σι κξφαλ{αιον) as (δά(ν€ΐσζν) αντώι δια τον iv ττ] αυ[ττί) κώμτ] γραφίου τω ξνζσ(τώτι) 
(erei) μηνΐ Ν€ρωζ.•€ΐωι Σ^βαστώι. (Second hand) ηθ4{τισται) μη{νϊ) 'Νίρωνίίωι 
Σξβαστώι ιδ, ά7Γθ'δ(οσ•ΐ5) λ [μ]η{νυς) Ί\ξρων€ίου τον ια (hovs), €νχ( ) λ€λν(μ€νη?). 


A marginal note (probably by the second hand) has ] . 7Γοχ( ) h άττο{γραφτι) 
ι (Irous). The other entries refer to loans iv Σεφώι, h Κζσμούχ{ζί) or ev T^et, 
and follow the same formula with similar later additions. The month 
after ηΘί{τισται\ (which is once written 77^erta(rai)), is uniformly that in 
which the contract was drawn up. dios Κλαύδιο? is mentioned, and the 
papyrus was probably written in the reign of Nero (A. D. 54-68). 43 lines 
in Col. i, besides the marginal notes. 

809. 167 χ6•4 cm. Ends of 33 lines from the beginning of a contract drawn 
up before the agoranomi for the sale (?) of a female slave called Τεχωσοί?. 
Dated in the reign of Trajan (a.d. 98-117), 

810. 14-6 X 10 cm. Proposal {€ΐτώ4χομαι μισθώσασθαι) addressed to Claudia 
Ptolema by Dioscorus for the lease of 3 arourae of βασιλική γη near Sinaru 
in the KXijpos of Xenon for the nineteenth year of Hadrian (a.d. 134-5). 
The land, being L• μΐρονί h άβρόχον (1. -χω), was to be irrigated by the lessee 
at his own expense and cultivated χόρτω et? κο-πην καΐ θζρινψ €τηνομήν 
at the total rent of 130 drachmae, the δημόσια being paid by the lessor. 
Cf. 730, the formula of which is almost identical. Nearly complete, but 
broken at the bottom. Title on the verso. 37 lines. 

811. 77 X 9-4 cm. 8 lines from the beginning of a letter from TIeWts to 
Ant[as ?] beginning καΐ τ6 ττρωτον ίγρ[α\\τά σο]ι ευχάριστων Έρμίτίττου (1. -ττω) οτί 
ττάντα μοι ττού ds την σην καταλογην (cf. 787), καΐ τα νυν et σοι φαί[ν€]ται γράψον 
αντω. . . Address on the verso. About A.D. i. 

812. IO-3 X 8-3 cm. Fragment of a letter containing in a postscript (1. 5) Trem- 
ασταί Αοκρίων [, (I. 6) piKapis ύτιο Αουκιου (υπ. Λ. above the line) ηκουσα γαρ 
ο[γ].' [> (1• 7) "^Ψ λωρΐκαν αυτοϋ [. Dated in the twenty-fifth year of Augustus, 
Athur (B.C. 5). 8 lines. 

813. 15x117 cm. Conclusion of a letter in which the writer requests that 
a cargo of barley may be sent to him. About a.d. i. 7 lines. 

814. 31-5 XI 1-6 cm. Fragment of an account in two columns. Among the 
entries are ττακτωνίταΐί . . . από Θζλβωι . . ., Κΰνο^ Πτολίμαίου των από Eiepye- 
τ[ώοί . . . Written in the fourth year (probably of Tiberius, i.e. A.D. 17-8). 
15 incomplete lines in Col. ii. 

815. 37-9 XI 1-3 cm. Fragment of an account containing names and sums of 
money arranged under different dates, the beginnings of lines being lost. 
The proper name Όνθονόβξΐ (dative) occurs. About a.d. i. 19 lines. 

816. Fr. {a) 14-3 χ 13.1 cm. Three fragments of an account containing names 
and sums of money. ]? 'Ισιδώρου /cat ^ Ιησούς occurs. 10 incomplete lines 
in Fr. {a). On the verso part of another account mentioning the twenty- 
fifth year (of Augustus, i.e. B.C. 6-^). 



817• 9*7 X 20 cm. 5 nearly complete lines from the top of a column containing 
a list of names and sums of money, a larger and a smaller, the second being 
probably interest, e. g. ] . δ( ) δια ^Αντ4ρωτο9 Αοκρητίου Παχών β (δραχμαι) 
ρν (δραχ/χαί) η. The twenty-first year (of Augustus, i.e. B.C. 10-9) is men- 
tioned. On the verso part of another account. 

818- 6-8 X 9 cm. Ends of the first 7 lines of a contract dated in the thirty- 
fourth year of Augustus (a.d. 4-5), written in a semi-uncial hand. 

819. 8-6 X IO-6 cm. Conclusion of a letter concerning the sale of wine or oil, 
ending τα δβ -προκζίμ^να x{oas) δ 'Π€'ηρασ{σ] θ ai hi (μου ανά bρaχ[μάs) Tiivre, τα 
KOpt(a?) L• bpaχ{μώv) (ξ {τριωβόλου). About A.D. ΐ. 6 lines. 

820. lo-a χ 17-9 cm. End of a letter containing the date (twenty-seventh year 
of Augustus, Tubi i[.], i.e. B.C. 3) and a postscript of 7 lines, giving various 

821. 1 1-5 X 6-2 cm. Ends of the first 9 lines of a letter to a daughter. About 

A.D. I. 

822. 5-4x13 cm. Beginning of a letter from Lysimachus to his brother. 
eS TTpaaaetv takes the place of xaipetv. About A.D. i. 4 lines. 

823. 24x10-3 cm. Fragment of the conclusion of a lease of land near 
Μ€ρμ4ρθ[α? Cf. 277. Dated in the twenty-fifth year of Augustus, Phaophi 
(b. C. 6). Written on the verso, the recto being blank. 13 incomplete lines. 

824. 4• Η X 2-5 cm. Fragment containing parts of the first 10 lines of a contract 
dated in the sole reign of Ptolemy (Alexander the god) Philometor 
(b. C. 101-88). 

825. 7-8 X 15-9 cm. Beginning of an account of which the heading is Αημητρίω 
και ^Αμμωνί<^ και TOis συν avTOLS μισθωταΐ^ ζ^νυκηί TrpaKTopeias τταρα Σαρα7ήωνο[ί] 
ττραγματζντοϋ Μίμφξωζ M[e]ft0[e]trou. λόγοί λημματοί καΐ άνα\ωμ[α]τοί μηνών 
τριών ά7τ[ό] Φαρμοΰθι Ιω? Παίζει του e [{^του^} . . . The beginnings of lines of 
a second column are preserved, containing a list of entries each commencing 
with τΐ{αρά). On the importance of this papyrus for the ξίνικη ττρακτορΐία 
see 712. introd. Second century. On the verso in a different hand (?) 
parts of the first 6 lines of a document mentioning the (γκτησ^ων βιβλιο- 
φυλάκιον, perhaps the draft of a declaration. 

826. 9'5Xii-9 cm. Fragment of the conclusion of a notice sent to some 
official, apparently an announcement of a death. Lines i sqq. Αίδυμ[οί] 
XapiT . ( ) yepδtos [μ€τήλλαξ€ ? τον] βίον τωΐ ίν€στώτι μηνΐ Ύύβι του δίυτ€ρο[υ) 
{και) τριακο[σ]τοΰ eroi»s Καίσαρος. διό ά^ιώι (άν φαίνηται καταχωρισθηναι τοΰτο 

[ €v] τοΐί τταρα σοι /3ι/3λίοΐ9 ... Α. D. 3• 9 unes. On the verso the 

beginning of an account. 

827. 135 X 6-8 cm. Part of a list of names. About A. d. i. 18 lines. 


828. 5-8x10 cm. Parts of 6 lines of a petition concerning the measurements 
of a piece of land. Early first century B. C. On the verso parts of 6 much 
effaced lines of another document. 

829. 13-3 X 9-3 cm. Part of a letter from Σωγίνηί to his sister. About A. D. i. 

13 lines. 

830. 15-3 X 5-6 cm. End of 17 lines of an official letter, enclosing other 
documents. Phaophi 28 of the twenty-first year (of Philometor probably, 
i.e. B.C. 155) is mentioned. Written across the fibres. On the verso part of 
a line. 

831. Fr. (λ) 6• IX 9-2 cm. Two fragments of a contract beginning trovs ζ 
[. . . . iv] Όξ(νρνγχων) 7ro(Aet) rrjs Θ?7/3[αίδ(οί). 6μο]λογ€Ϊ Α€τττίν[η9 . .]ιχώνακτοί 
Μακζδων των Σωγγίνάρωί ττ^ζών 'Ηρακλείδη[ι .... The sovereign is Ptolemy 
Soter II, and the date therefore B.C. i ii-o. 8 lines. 

832. 14x21-3 cm. Parts of two columns of a taxing-list of some kind. 
Col. ii begins γίνεται το 7r(ay?) ζττικζφαλαίον, TecSros αρσενικά ρμ, θηλυκά ριζ, 
/[σνζ.] Βησατο{ή . . The fifteenth year of Augustus (B.C. 16-5) is mentioned 
in Col. i. In the blank space between the columns a second hand has 
written ZeC μάκαρ αθανάτων, and a third the beginning of an acknowledge- 
ment of a payment at the Serapeum of Oxyrhynchus. On the verso traces 
of two other documents. 

833. 11-8x16 cm. Beginning of an official report concerning ημιολίαι 
σπερμάτων. Lines 1-7 σννάγονταί από ημιολιαί σιτ€ρμ[άτων] Όζυρνγχ[ίτον)' 
των υττο των κατά τόττον σίτολ[όγων] ωμολο(γημζνων) κζχ^ορη(γησθαί) eis κλη- 
ρονχ( ) αΐ γ . .[. . .] άν€ί{ ) (ττυροΰ) σοεδ', δι(αφορου) μηL•b\ λ[ο(ίτταΙ)] σκ(ζ-}ζ_. 
αλΧηζ ημίθλία$' των σημαινόμενων ύ[ττο\ των τον νομού τοιτογραμμα(τζων) ττλείωι 
κ€χορη[γήσθαί ... Cf. Ρ. Tebt. Ι. pp. 226-7. About A.D. I. 8 lines. 

834. 4' 5 X 9*8 cm. Conclusion of a letter dated in the twenty-sixth year of 
Augustus, Mesore (B.C. 4), mentioning a voyage els "Ομβου^. 6 lines. 

835. 19-8 X 12-8 cm. An offisr to purchase confiscated land at Pela, addressed 
to Gaius Sep[p]ius Rufus ; cf. 721, which has the same formula. The 
purchase price, which was to be paid επΙ την kv τω Σ[α]ρ[αιτάω Ιη'βοσίαν 
[τρατ:ςζαν, was not less than 100 drachmae. The earlier portion is much 
mutilated. For the conclusion see 721. 14-5, note. About A.D. 13. 

14 lines. 

836. 13-5 X 12-8 cm. Loan of 32 artabae -πύρου στέρεου from Theoxenus to two 
ΥΙερσαι [r^s ετ:ι-γον]ψ and a third person. Lines 6 sqq. ά■nohότωσav 6e ol 
^ε^ανεισμενοι θεοζενω Tas τριάκοντα δυο άρτάβαί των ττυρων εν μηνΐ ΥΙαννι του 
εκκαώεκατου ετου^ εν Οζυρύγχ^ων ττόλει ττυρον στερεον νέον καθαρόν qbokov μετρώ 
τετραχοινίκω άγ(^ο}ρανομικω καταστησαντες toIs Ibiois α[ν]ηλώμασι κ.τ.λ. For 

S 2 


μίτρον αγορανομικού cf. 740. 17, note, and for the formula cf. the late 
Ptolemaic loans from Gebelen, e.g. P. Grenf. I. 23. First century B.C. ; the 
sixteenth year refers to Neos Dionysus (B.C. 66-^) or Augustus (B.C. 15-4). 
Nearly complete, but broken at the beginning. 30 lines. The papyrus 
has been gummed on to two similar documents, of which parts of a few 
lines are preserved. 

837. ι8•6 X 15-5 cm. Will of Apollos daughter of Paesis, leaving her property 
at Kerkemounis jointly to Didymus son of Dio'genes], probably a son 
by her first marriage, and to the offspring of her present marriage with 
Apollos son of Ophelas, with provisions for the φζρνη and τταράφζρνα of 
a daughter and for the guardianship of the children. Dated in the second 
year of Hadrian (a. D. 1 17-8). Cf. 489-95. Written across the fibres. 30 
lines, of which only the beginnings are preserved. 

838. 30-5 X 9-5 cm. Lease of land at the Ήρακλύδου Ηοίκων from Diogenes 
to two persons, with the signature of the lessor. The formula follows that 
of e.g. 499. The conclusion is r^? ^ττίνομή^ ούσης του Aioyivovs. κυρία η 
μίσθωσ-ίξ. Dated in the twenty-first year of Hadrian, Thoth (a.d. 136). 
Incomplete. 52 lines. 

839. ^75 X 17-1 cm. Letter from Eutychides to his mother, the earlier part 
describing an accident to a boat. Lines 6 sqq. ώ? (ναυάγησαν κατά Πτολίμαίδα 
και ηλθ4 μοι γυμνός KeKtvbvv€VK(as. €υθ4ω$ ήγόρασα αύτώί στολην. Α μαχαιροφόρος 
is mentioned, apparently as the bearer of the letter. Early first century A. D. 
Incomplete. 26 lines. 


Addenda and Corrigenda to Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part II 
and Fayum Towns and their Papyri^ 

For the literature connected with these volumes see the successive bibliographies of 
papyri by Wilcken in the Archiv, and by de Ricci in the Revue des e'tudes grecques. 
After an examination of the articles in question and a comparison with the papyri, we give 
here a list of those suggestions which both affect our transcriptions of the texts and 
are satisfactory. Proposed alterations which are unsuitable, or are based upon alternatives 
mentioned in our notes, or in the case of literary texts are confined to the supplements 
of lacunae, are generally ignored. Where the source of the correction is not indicated, 
it is our own. 


Part. II. 211. 34. h\paμoϊ\v for a[ ji/ (Weil) is possible. 

214. Recto 7. The vestige of a letter before a[ is too slight to afford any clue. The 
same remark applies to the two letters after /xe in 1. 15. 

18. Possibly νο\υσον ίχίΐν (Ludwich). 

Verso II. Possibly o[s n]e\a\y]o[s (Piatt), but it is not certain that a letter is lost after e\a, 
and the following vestiges suit e better than o. Perhaps π](\αγ([ιζων (Boiling). 

12. t[. . .]f[.] . oi : the doubtful r may be π, but neither π[(πι]σ[μΐ]νος (Piatt) nor π[ε7Γο]ί[^]ωί 
(Boiling) seem to suit. 

13. fx . . Xoy : the first letter is more like ν than μ. 

14. 1. ασ[τυ]φί\ικτος (Ludwich) at the end of the line. 

215. i. 28. ωσιν should very likely be read in place of θοσιν, but there is not room for 
[aya]5o[i' νο]ωσι (Fraccaroli). 

216. i. 2. λην is a misprint for λης. 

218. The position in Col. ii conjecturally assigned by us to Fr. {c) may be considered 
certain. Line 26 is pav σ[νμφ]Ερΐΐ[ (or, as Cronert suggests, €[πιφ]€ρ(ΐ), 27 vntp τ[η5] 

ολι;ί[, 28 Ap;)^eX[ao]f και Ζηρ[ο8οτο5 (cf. OUr nOte ad loc), 29 perhaps [ev TOis] ntpi τάφου {ev 

Tois Cronert). Fragment (b) probably joins Fr. (a) so that Fr. (a) i. i8 and Fr. {δ) i 
form one line, i.e. ]ζωρτα το-, Fr. (e) probably belongs to the bottom of Fr. {a) ii. 

219. II. λιθο[ΐ5 Kt]aai (i.e. κ€ΐσαι) (Piatt) is possible. 

17. For fpyio[v] τροφην Wilamowitz suggests ορνιθ[ο]τροφιν. θ in place of ο is possible, but 
the first letter is more like e than o. The η of τροφην is certain. 

220. A newly-found fragment, apparently from the top of a column, contains the 
beginnings of two lines τυγχα[ν and μα• γ[. Cf 221 ad fin. 

X. 1 6. The penultimate letter before αι/α[ is /3 or κ. 

xi. 20. €π[ί σ\ηχον (Leo) is possible, but 8]e 7r[<B]s for the preceding letters is unsuitable. 

221. i. I. 1. ore for re (Ludwich). 

2. τα βαρυτον[α (Ludwich) is not very suitable. 
17. To]y before Siappow (Ludwich) is possible. 

21. Possibly απο[φίνγ€ΐ (Ludwich), but the doubtful letter is more like η or t. 

ii. 3. I. ve]{cpois (Allen). 

9. 1. τΐλΐνταν [ (Wilamowitz). 

iii. 2. The traces of a letter before aeXav suit ω or ι better than v. The papyrus has 


SteXfo]»/, i.e. the first hand wrote dieXov which was corrected to BeeXop (Diels). 

3. 1. Ύμαρ€ς for γ Mapes (Diels). 
6. 1. n\fio for firkeio (Diels). 

23-4. 1. fee κ I [ησο fi\a\yT0 (Ludwich). 

25. [πτ]ωτην (Ludwich) is possible. 

26-7. 1. y€-^ove]yai (Ludwich). 

iv. 18. The vestiges before m are too faint to aiford a clue, 
vi. II. φαιρ]ηται ο yovos (Ludwich) is possible. 

vii. 5. τταΓρ] kvai^pcovTi (Piatt, Ludwich) cannot be read, but ούτως 6e και Αί/ακίρίωι/ is 


15. 1. ταυτην for ra^e . . v. 

ix. 1 . 1. aavras [ . . .]ya[. •].''ασ[ for σαν ται[. . .] . κα[. .] . πασ[. 

9- δί ττ€ρ[ησ]η: for δ ίπορ[ίυθ]ης (Ludwich) is just possible, but the letter following π is 

more like ο than e. 
15. 1. κράνα Μίλ[αΐΌ]ϊ for κραναν e\[iKo]s (Wilamowitz). 
xii. lo. The vestiges on either side of υ are too slight to give a clue. 

26. πον might be read instead of των. 



xiv. 25. »; at the end of the hne is extremely doubtful. There are more probably two 

26. στΐνονμ€ν\αϊ\ γηί (Ludwich) is pOSSible. 

xvi. 20-1. €]|πι νιων (Ludwich) is possible, but the π is extremely doubtful. 

xvii. 12. e\v αφη (Ludwich) is possible. 

Fr. {a) 5. Αθην[οκ\ης (Cronert) is possible. 

The beginnings of 1 2 lines are contained on a new fragment which the recto (cf. 220) 
seems to show is from near the bottom of a column, while 1. 9 νπ aaios (cf. //. xxi. 318-21) 
indicates that it belongs to the column lost before Col. xvi. 

[.]... .[ 

a . OCT 



τον δ€σ[ 
5 [π]€ριογτ[ 

τα 7Γοταμ[ 
νπ aaios [ 
10 μα? €Κ τ[ 
Γ.1 π€ντ\ 

222. 17• ον{τως) Κρατης (Diels) can be read, 
230. 32. (η^ουμψ is a misprint for (ζη^ονμψ. 
282. 2. Insert η after ε8ικασθ\η. 
237. iv. 8. 1. ΐκλ^γομΐνην (Gradenwitz). 

17. I. τώ Άσκλ?;7Γΐάδ)7 [άπ]ο8€δωκίναι (Grad.). 

21. 1. τοϋ γαρ Άσκλη\τηά8\ον τω κ8 (eVei) [ά1παιτοϋ[ΐ']το$ (Grad.). 

26. 1. οΐμολο-γηματα γίγΐνησθαί μ[ε] (ΟΓ μ[οι^) (Grad.). 

30. 1. της δε μητ[ρωα5 ονσ/αί] (Grad.). 

33. ίτησταμΐνο[ν] (Grad.) is possible. 
V. 7• {ου} is a mistake for os (Grad.). , 

7—8. 1. κατα\άβτ]ί άξιον eV €μ€ άνάπΐμψον. 
1 6. 1. άί^^απο^μπης άξιον (Blass). 

34• 1• διό before χρηματισμών (Grad.). 
38. 1. 8ύνασ{θ]αι (Grad.). 
42. \• μη \α\ΐ(ληθηναι, 

vi. 18. 1. ovTivos (Blass). 

21. 1. απ ίμοΰ for άπλώί. 

24• 1• ^""ί τίί? Ι^νΥρφ'^^ ουσίας βονΚηθί'ιστ) συν€νΒ. (Grad.). 

25. 1• άπαλλ[αττ . . . (Grad.). 

31. 1. το ... . πασ^αΜ el ουκ (ξόν. 

νϋ. 2 2. 1. υπο λοίπη: (i.e. λΰπηί) for ΰπο'ΚοΙττηί (Wilamowitz). 
23• 1• ηννκΐναι for ηκουκίναι (Wilam.). 

26-7• iveyKavTos is a mistake for iviyKovra (Wilam.). 

40. 1. μετ άλλα for μeτάλλa (Grad.). 

viii. 24—5. 1• Tais -γάμου μ€ν\αΐ!\ δίά το καΐ (Grad., G— Η.). 

2 7• 1. νπο for τοϋ. ιγ (referring to Trajan's reign) can be read, as Stein suggested, for 
κγ, but cf. 712. 7, where a Sulpicius Similis is mentioned certainly long after Trajan's 
time and perhaps in the reign of Commodus. 


255. 16. 1. [e]| [ii]ytous for [. . . .]τίω5. 
265. 39• 1. νδρΐυμάτων. 

269. ii. 2. 1. [μ\ακρω for [Μ]άκρω (Wilam.). 

270. 25. A line has dropped out of the text. 1. και ωνημίνη: npoupats ΐξ ημίικι Tats ίττΐ TO αυτό 
κατοι\κικης καί ωνημίνης (Is κατοικίαν κ.τ,Χ. (Goodspeed). 

273. 5• ί• 'ίατ« ['Ρω]μαίωί' ΐ[θ\η νπο κ.τ.Χ. 

8. The letters following ον might be read as τον. 

274. 2 2. 1. (πικαταβολ(^ις) for ίπικατακολ(ουθονν) (WeSSely). 

24-5. [€μβα8€ΰ]\σ(ω! (Wessely) is possible. 

277. 9—13. 1. Αι.ονν\σΙον η τ\η^ς γης [νπ]()\ογήτωι αιιτου[ . . ,]κ . [.]ι/ | ονκιωι ημισν, 

[βΐβα\ιοντωι Se Ai[ovvaios την μίσθωσιν] | ττάσηι [β^€βαι.[ώσ(ΐ, βίβαιου\μ€νης 8i a[vTrjs κομίζίτωσαν 1| 
κοινώς τα [yeji/^^a^ra^ «'[ττί] ras Trep\ ΐί\άμιν ν\η(ΐ^ρχονσας\ \ αλωι (1. άλως) κ,τ.λ. 

286. Ι9• 1. άττοδώσΕίΜ (i.e. άτΓοδώσιι/) for άπο8ώσ(ΐν (Wilam.). 

287. 7• 1• ^άντα for πάΐ'Γ(α). 

289. 3• The abbreviation beginning with σ which recurs in this papyrus is probably 

σύ[μ)πα{ν) ; cf 574. 

298. 42. y is a misprint for P. 

Faytim Towns and their Papyri. 

2. iii. 16. δ ίΚκίύν \τ\^{\χα for ere . . μ.ν\. .] . [.] . α (Weil) is possible. 
23. ^'ττ'^θ for [.] . . αθ (Weil) is possible. 

32. 1. αιγδοι/ for aiyhij^ (Weil). 

8. 10. [f] is a misprint for [re]. 

10. This fragment has been identified by Plasberg and Ferrini as coming from Ulpian, Lib. 

xlv. {Dig. xxix. I. i). 3. 1. proferri for prqfessi. 6. 1. er[ga for es^se. 10. 1. mililes 
f^estamenta. 11. \. facid\nt iox enidy. 

11. 22. 1. τ[ό] *:[αλ]ωΓ. exov (Wilcken). 

20. introd. p. 117. 1. 5. υ]παΓθί (de Ricci) for \ατος is possible. The edict is assigned by 
Dessau to Julian instead of Severus Alexander. 
6. « Tt (Wilamowitz) can be read in place of eut. 
8. (ΐη before και ταντα is corrected by Wilamowitz to eVt. 

15. e^ άπάΐ'τω[ΐ' κρατΛν | χρημάτων (Wilamowitz) is better than our (ξ άπάντω[ν | χρημα- 

23. introd. 1. Tαμoυeω(s) for Ύαμανσω{ ) (Smyly) ; cf. the modern Tamia. 

23(a). 5—6. 1. Καβασίίτου . . . Μ(τηλίτ[ου]. 

27. 32. 1. γνωρίζω for . τίίριζω (Wessely). 

42 (β). 15. 1. γραμματ{ικοΰ) for γραμματ{ίως)', cf. P. Tebt. I. p. 28. 

46. 3. 1. τΓβο? for ..y{ ). 

48. 3. 1. wpoyo(fos) ' Stepson ' (Wilcken). 

50. 5. 1. 8ρόμ(ου) for Δ^ώμ{ατος) (Wilckcn). 

67-76. 1. τΐτΐΚ{ώνηται) for τΐτ4\{(σται) (Wilcken). 

73. I. 1. άντ(σνμβόλ(τ]σ€) Παησις τ(λ(ωνησάμΐνος) (Wilcken). Similarly in 74. I. 1 άντ(- 

96. 1. Α. D. 143 forA. D. 122. 

110. I. 1. BeXAi^wi (Wilamowitz). 

15. 1. ποτ[ισ]άτωσαν for λου[σ]άτωσαΐ' (WilamOwitz). 



112. 4. 1. b^βo\i,τ\p}ovs•, cf. P. Amh. II. 91. 11 note. 
116. 3-4. 1. φά]"γ1ρουΓ for φά\ρονί (Wilamowitz). 

138. I. Kpeiverai = Kpivere (WilamOwitz). 

244 is probably written across the fibres of the recto, not on the verso. 
284 is dated in the loth year of Antoninus (a. d. 146). 


A revised text of Part III, no. 405 (Irenaeus, Con/ra Haereses, iii. 9). 

The seven fragments of an early Christian work published as 405 were identified 
by Dr. J. Armitage Robinson as belonging to the lost Greek original of Irenaeus' treatise 
Contra Haereses, which is extant only in a Latin translation, and when fitted together 
correspond to part of iii. 9. A provisional reconstruction was given by him in Athenceum, 
Oct. 24, 1903; cf. our note, ibid., Nov. 7, and that of Dr. Rendel Harris, ibid., Nov. 14. 
We now print a revised text of the whole. The chief interest of the discovery lies in the 
resulting correspondence between the readings of Irenaeus' quotation from Matt. iii. 16-7 
in 11. 23-9 and those of the Codex Bezae. The Latin translation there has the ordinary 
reading Hie est {filius mens), whereas the original agrees with D in having (1. 28) σν e[i in 
place of οντάς ioTiv, and a variant peculiar to D (<as for ωσΐί before nepiaripav) occurs in 1. 25 
(Lat. quasi). * These two unsuspected coincidences between Irenaeus and D, of which the 
one is misrepresented, the other inevitably obscured by the Latin translator, indicate that 
the extent of the agreement between Irenaeus' quotations and the text of the Codex Bezae 
is even larger than what the imperfect evidence of the Latin translation has led critics to 
suppose ' {Athen., Nov. 7). 

Col. i. 

Col. ii. 

[στου] σου [ωμοσ^ν ks τ]ω Δ\αυ 
[ei5 α]λ77^[6ία]ί/ κα\ι o]f μτ] αθζ 
[τ]τ}[σ€]ι [α]υτον ck κ[αρ]που ττ/ί 
5 KoiXias σον θησ[ομ]αί εττί βρο 
[νου σου κα]ί 7r[a\iv]' γνωστό? 
[ev τη Ιου8αια ο 6s κ]αι €γ€νη 
[θη €v €ΐρηνη ο το]πος αυτού 

[ λιβ]αν[ον Se on θ? ο 

[και γν]ωστο9 [^ν τη Ιουδαία 
20 [γ€ν]ομ€νο9 κ[αι ζμφανη? tois 

μη ζητουσιν [αυτόν και «ττί ' 
του βαπτ[ισμου φησι Ματθαί 

> OS- ανί(ΰ[γ6ησαν οι ουρανοί 

> και eiSev τ[ο πνα του Θυ κατά 
25 > βαινον ωy π[€ριστ€ραν και 


και το κατοικητηρ]ιον αυτού > ^ργομ^νον e[is αυτόν και 

10 \€V ^ιων €19 ου]γ και ο αυ > ιδού φων[η ζκ των ουρανών 

TOS θς ο υπο των] προφη[τ]ώ > λξγονσα συ €[ι ο ΰ? μου ο αγα 

κηρυσσομζνο]^ και υπο του > πητο? [e]v ω [ΐυδοκησα ον 
ζυαγγ€λιου .]ταγγίλ[λ]ομ€ 3° Ύ^Ρ '''^^^ ο Χ^ [κατφη €is 
VOS και ο ΰ§ €κ] παρθ€ν[ου] τον Ιγ ου8 a[X\os μ^ν ο χ? 

15 [ ] ου και το [ασ aWos δε I[y άλλα ο λόγος τον 

τρον Ησαΐας μ^ν ου]τως [e βυ ο σωτ[ηρ πάντων και κυ 

[προφητξυσξν ανατ€]λ[€ΐ ρΐ€υω[ν ουρανού και γης 

13• (παγγΐλλομΐνος would be expected [annuntiaius Lat.), but the letter before αγγ is 
more like r or γ than π. 

14-5. The Latin has et hums films qui ex fructu ventris David, id esl ex David 
virgine el Emmanuel, cuius et stellam &c. The papyrus version is much shorter. 

16. For ΗσαίΟΓ instead of Βαλαα/ιι cf. Rendel Harris, Athen., Nov. 14. 

31. The Latin has in lesum, neque alius quidem Christus. The supposed ν of \v is 
more like η, but it is impossible to read \ψ, and for the omission of η in the earliest con- 
tractions of \r\aovs cf. e. g. 1. 


List of Oxyrhynchus and Fayum Papyri distributed. 

We give here a list of the papyri published in Oxyrhyyichus Papyri, Parts I-III, and 
Fayum Towns and their Papyri, which have been presented to different museums and 
libraries. Those papyri which do not appear have for various reasons not yet been dis- 
tributed and are still at Queen's College, Oxford. Where ascertainable, we have added the 
present reference numbers in the catalogues of the several institutions to which the papyri 
now belong. The following abbreviations are employed : — 

Am. = America. The papyri under this heading have only recently been sent to America, 

and details of the distribution are not yet forthcoming. 
B. M. = British Museum. The numbers refer to the catalogue of papyri. 
Belfast = Belfast Museum. 

Bod. = Bodleian Library, Oxford. The references are to the hand-list of MSS, 
Bolton = Chadwick Museum, Bolton, Lanes. 
Bradfield = Library of Bradfield College, Berks. 
Bristol = Bristol Museum. 



Brussels = Musees Royaux, Brussels, Belgium. 

Cairo = Museum of Antiquities, Cairo. The numbers are those of the inventory ; cf. our 

Catalogue of Greek Papyri in the Cairo Museum. 
Camb. = Cambridge University Library. The numbers refer to the ' Additions.' 
Chicago = Haskell Museum, University of Chicago, U.S.A. The papyri are all numbered 

'Accession 33.' 
Clifton = Library of Clifton College, Bristol. 
Columbia = Library of Columbia University, New York, U.S.A. 
Dublin = Library of Trinity College, Dublin. 
Dundee = Library of University College, Dundee. 
Edinburgh = Library of Edinburgh University. 
Eton = Library of Eton College, Windsor. 
Glasgow = Library of Glasgow University. 
Graz = Library of Graz University, Austria. 
Haileybury = Library of Haileybury College, Hertford. 
Hamilton = Hamilton College, U.S.A. 
Harrow = Library of Harrow School. 

Harvard = Semitic Museum of Harvard University, Mass., U.S.A. 
HoUoway = Library of Holloway College, Egham. 

Johns Hopkins = Library of Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, U.S.A. 
Liverpool = Liverpool Free Public Museum. 
Melbourne = Library of Melbourne University, Victoria. 
Owen's Coll. = Museum of Owen's College, Manchester. 
Pennsyl. = Museum of Science and Art, University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 
Princeton = Library of Princeton University, N.J., U.S.A. 
Repton = Library of Repton School, Burton-on-Trent. 
Rugby = Library of Rugby School. 

Smiths. = Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 
St. Andrews = Library of St. Andrews University. 
Toronto = Toronto University, Canada. 
Vassar = Library of Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, U.S.A. 
Vict. = Museum of Victoria University, Toronto, Canada. 
Winchester = Library of Winchester College. 
Yale = Library of Yale University, U.S.A. 

Oxyrhynchus Papyri. 

1. Bod. Gr. th. e. 7 

10. Yale. 

20. B. M. 742. 

31. Camb. 4031. 


11. B. M. 740, 

21. Chicago. 

32. Bod. Lat. class 

2. Pennsyl. 2746. 

12. Camb. 4029. 

22. B. M. 743. 

Λ 3 (Ρ). 

3. Chicago. 

13. Columbia. 

23. Camb. 4030. 

35. Pennsyl. 2749. 

4. Camb. 4027. 

14. Edinburgh. 

24. Yale. 

36. Bod. Gr. class 

5. Bod. Gr. th./. 9 

15. Glasgow. 

25. Johns Hopkins. 

d. 60 (P). 


16. Pennsyl. 2747. 

26. B. M. 744. 

37. B. M. 746. 

6. Camb. 4028. 

17. Johns Hopkins. 

27. Chicago. 

38. Cairo 10002. 

7. B. M. 739. 

18. B. M. 741. 

28. St. Andrews. 

39. Cairo loooi. 

8. Harvard 221 1. 

19, Princeton 0132. 

29. Pennsyl. 2748. 

40. Camb. 4032. 

9. Dublin Pap. B. i. 

692. 19. 

30. B. M. 745. 

41. Cairo 10073. 


42. Β. Μ. 747- 

43. Β. Μ. 748. 

44. Β. Μ. 749• 

45. Pennsyl. 2750. 

46. Harvard 2212. 

47. Β. Μ. 750. 

48. Harrow. 

49. Dublin Pap. Ε. ι. 

50. Dublin Pap. F. ι. 

51. Edinburgh. 

52. Glasgow. 

53. Β. Μ. 75ΐ• 

54. Chicago. 

55 (3 copies). Camb. 


56. Camb. 4036. 

57. Johns Hopkins. 

58. B. M. 752. 

59. B. M. 753• 

60. Dublin Pap. D. i, 

61. Camb. 4037• 

62. Bod. Gr. class 
d. 61 (P). 

63. Cairo 10007. 

64. Princeton 0132 
692. 64. 

65. Pennsyl. 2751. 

66. Camb. 4038. 

67 (2 copies). B. M. 


68. Owen's Coll. 

69. Chicago. 

70. Vassar. 

71. B. M. 755. 

72. Glasgow. 
72 (β). Chicago. 

73. Owen's Coll. 

74. Hamilton. 

75. Chicago. 

76. Camb. 4039. 

77. Dublin Pap. D. 2 

79. B. M. 756. 

80. "Winchester. 

81. B. M. 757. 

82. B. M. 758. 

83. Rugby. 
83(a). Repton. 

84. B. M. 759• 

85. B. M. 760. 

86. Camb. 4040. 

88. Pennsyl. 2752. 

89. Cairo 10008. 

90. B. M. 76r. 

91. Η olio way. 

92. Harvard 2213 

93. B. M. 762. 

94. B. M. 763. 

95. Holloway. 

96. Camb. 4041. 

97. Edinburgh. 

98. B. M. 764. 

99. B. M. 765. 

100. Edinburgh. 

101. Chicago. | 

102. B. M. 766.- 

103. B. M. 767. 

104. Camb. 4042. 

105. Dublin Pap. C.I. 

106. Chicago. 

107. Cairo 10006. 

108. Pennsyl. 2753. 

109. Harvard 2214. 

110. Eton. 

111. Clifton. 

112. Harrow. 

113. Cairo looii. 

114. Eton. 

115. Yale. 

116. Clifton. 

117. Chicago. 

118. Camb. 4043. 

119. Bod. Gr. class 
/ 66 (P). 

120. Haileybury. 

121. Chicago. 

122. B. M. 768. 

123. Cairo 10014. 

124. "Winchester. 

125. Cairo 10062. 

126. Cairo 10085. 

127. Cairo 10084. 

128. Cairo 10121. 

129. Cairo 10082. 

130. Cairo 10072. 

131. Cairo 10063. 

132. Cairo 10133. 

133. Cairo 10056. 

134. Cairo 10053. 

135. Cairo 10018. 

136. Cairo 10103. 

137. Cairo 10034. 

138. Cairo loioo. 

139. Cairo 10049. 

140. Cairo 10057. 

141. Cairo 10096. 

142. B. M. 769. 

143. B. M. 770. 

144. Cairo 10071. 

145. Cairo 10066. 

146. Cairo 10076. 

147. Cairo 10074. 

148. Cairo 10075. 

149. Cairo 10045. 

150. Cairo 1005 1. 

151. Cairo 10094. 

152. Cairo 10048. 

153. Cairo 10044. 

154. Cairo 10102. 

155. Cairo 10020. 

156. Cairo 10035. 

157. Cairo 10042. 

158. Cairo 10043. 
159-63. Chicago. 

164. B. M. 771. 

165. Camb. 4044. 

166. Bod. Gr. class 

c. 47 (P)• , 

167. Bod. Gr. class 

/• 67 (P)• , 

168. Pennsyl. 2754. 

169. Vassar. 

170. Harvard 2215. 

171. Camb. 4045. 

172. Melbourne Pap. 


173. St. Andrews. 

174. Johns Hopkins. 

175. Bristol. 

176. Brussels. 

177. Bod. Gr. class. 
d. 62 (P). 

178. Hamilton. 

179. B. M. 772. 

180. Harvard 2216. 

181. Pennsyl. 2755. 

182. Bod. Gr. class 
/ 68 (P). 

183. Dublin Pap. F. 2 

184. Dublin Pap.E.2 

185. Glasgow. 


186. Bod. Gr. class. 
/. 69 (P). 

187. Melbourne Pap. 


188. Bod. Gr. class. 
d. 63 (P). 

189. B. M. 773• 

192. Camb. 4046. 

193. B. M. 774• 

194. Pennsyl. 2756. 

195. B. M. 775• 

197. B. M. 776. 

198. B. M. 777• 

199. B. M. 778. 

200. Harvard 2217. 

201. B. M. 779. - 

202. Camb. 4047• 

204. Edinburgh. 

205. B. M. 780. 

206. Yale. 

207. B. M. 781. 

208. B. M. 782. 

209. Harvard 2218. 

210. Camb. 4048. 

211. Am. 

212. B. M. 1 180. 

213. Am. 

214. B. M. 1 181. 

215. B. M. 1182. 

216. Yale. 

217. Camb. 4049• 

218. B. M.I 183. 

219. Am. 
220-1. B. M. 1 184. 

222. B.M.I 185. 

223. Bod. Gr. class. 
a. 8 (P). 

224. B. M. 783. 

225. B. M. 784. 

226. Columbia. 

227. B. M. 785. 

228. Bod. Gr. class. 
d. 64 (P). 

229. B. M. 786. 

230. Johns Hopkins. 

231. Camb. 405°• 

232. B. M. 787. 

233. Pennsyl. 2757. 

234. St. Andrews. 

235. Camb. 4051• - 



236. B. M. 788. 

237. Bod. Gr. class. 
a. 8 (P). 

238. Dublin Pap.E.3. 

239. Pennsyl. 2758. 

240. B. M. 789. 

241. Princeton 0132. 
692. 241. 

242. Graz. 

243. B. M. 790. 

244. B. M. 791. 

245. Pennsyl. 2759. 

246. Camb. 4052. 

247. Glasgow. 

248. Camb. 4053. 

249. Yale. 

250. Am. 

251. B. M. 1186. 

252. Liverpool. 

253. Graz. 
254-7. Am. 

258. Brussels. 

259. Am. 

260. Dublin Pap. D. 


261. B. M. 792. 

262. Columbia. 

263. Melbourne Pap. 


264. Camb. 4054. 

265. Vict. 

266. B. M. 1187. 

267. Am. 

269. Pennsyl. 2760. 

270. B. M. 793. 

272. Am. 

273. Brussels. 

274. Am. 

275. B. M. 794. 

276. Am. 

277. B. M. 1188. 

278. B. M. 795. 

279. Camb. 4055. 

280. Camb. 4056. 

281. Hollo way. 

282. Yale. 

283. Bristol. 

284. Harvard 2219. 

285. B. M. 796. 

286. B. M. 797. 

287. Am. 

288. B. M. 798. 

289. B. M. 799. 

290. Pennsyl. 2761. 

291. B. M. 800. 

292. Camb. 4057. 
293-5. Am. 

296. Johns Hopkins. 
297-8. Am. 

299. Bradfield. 

300. Bradfield. 

301. B. M. 801. 

302. Bod. Gr. class. 

g- 47 (P). 

303. Bod. Gr. class. 
g. 48 (P). 

304. Camb. 4058. 

305. Bod. Gr. class. 

c. 48 (P). 

306. Cairo 10003. 

307. Cairo 10012. 

308. Dublin Pap. B. 2. 

309. Edinburgh. 

310. Glasgow. 

311. St. Andrews. 

312. Owen's Coll. 

313. Camb. 4059. 

314. Harvard 2220. 

315. Bod. Gr. class. 

d. 65 (P). 

316. Bod. Gr. class. 
.. 78(P). 

317. Columbia. 

318. B. M. 802. 

319. Johns Hopkins. 

320. Princeton 0132. 
692. 320. 

321. Bod. Gr. class. (P). 

322. Bod. Gr. class. 

c. 49 (P). 

323. Pennsyl. 2762. 

324. Bod. Gr. class. 

e. 80 (P). 

325. Bod. Gr. class. 

d. 67 (P). 

326. Bod. Gr. class. 

e. 79 (P). 

327. Pennsyh 2763. 

328. Harvard 2221. 

329. Yale. 

330. Columbia. 

331. Johns Hopkins. 

332. Princeton 0132. 
692. 332. 

333. Princeton 0132. 

692. 333• 

334. Johns Hopkins. 

335. Camb. 4060. 

336. Dublin Pap. F. 3. 

337. Edinburgh. 

338. Glasgow. 

339. B. M. 803. 

340. St. Andrews. 

341. Owen's Coll. 

342. Camb. 4061. 

343. Dublin Pap.E.4. 

344. Pennsyl. 2764. 

345. Columbia. 

346. Melbourne Pap. 


347. Camb. 4062. 

348. Pennsyl. 2765. 

349. Pennsyl. 2766. 

350. Camb. 4063. 

351. Yale. 

352. Columbia. 

353. Johns Hopkins. 

354. B. M. 804. 

355. Camb. 4064. 

356. Dublin Pap. E.5. 

357. Princeton 0132. 
692. 357. 

358. Columbia. 

359. Glasgow. 

360. Bod. Gr. class. 
e. 81 (P). 

361. Bod. Gr. class. 
e. 82 (P). 

362. Harvard 2222. 

363. Camb. 4065. 

364. Dublin Pap. F. 4. 

365. Dublin Pap.E.6. 

366. Dublin Pap. E. 7. 

367. B. M. 805. 

368. Graz. 

369. Hamilton. 

370. B. M. 806. 

371. Brussels. 

372. Vict. 

373. Bod. Gr. class• 
/ 70 (P). 

374. B. M. 807. 

375. Camb. 4066. 

376. Edinburgh. 

377. B. M. 808. 

378. B. M. 809. 

379. Bod. Gr. class. 
e. 83 (P). 

380. Camb. 4067. 

381. B. M. 810. 

382. B. M. 811. 

383. Camb. 4068. 

384. B. M. 812. 

385. Dublin Pap. F.5. 

386. Bod. Gr. class. 


387. Bod. Gr. class. 

e. 84 (P). 

388. Dublin Pap. F. 6. 

389. Bod. Gr. class. 
e. 85 (P). 

390. Bod. Gr. class. 
d. 68 (P). 

391. B. M. 813. 

392. Am. 

393. Yale. 

394. Camb. 4069. 

395. Am. 

396. B. M. 814. 

397. Bod. Gr. class. 
d. 69 (P). 

398. Bod. Gr. class. 

c. 50 (P). 

399. Columbia. 

400. Bod. Gr. class. 

d. 70 (P). 
401-2. Am. 
407. B. M. 1 189. 
445. B. M. 1 190. 
446-8. Am. 

449. Brussels. 

450. Graz. 

451. Vict. 
452-3. Am. 

454. Bod. Gr. class, 

c. 54 (P). 
455-6. Am. 
457. Vict. 
458-62. Am. 



463. Bod. Gr. class. 

a. 1 (P). 
469. Am. 
476. Am. 
479-80. Am. 
482. Am. 
484. Brussels. 
487. Am. 
499. Vict. 
502-3. Am. 
505. Am. 
508. Am. 
510. Am. 
512. Am. 
516-8. Am. 

522-3. Am. 
526-7. Am. 
529. Am. 
531-2. Am. 
534-41. Am. 
542. Owen's Coll. 
543-9. Am. 
550. B. M. 1191. 
551-3. Am. 
554. Graz. 
555-7. Am. 

558. Belfast. 

559. Am. 

560. Vict. 
561-72. Am. 

573. Brussels. 

575. Am. 

576. Brussels. 
577-8. Am. 

580. Am. 

581. Dundee. 
582-8. Am. 
589. Graz. 
590-8. Am. 

603. Graz. 

604. Bolton. 
605-7. Am. 
608. Vict. 
609-10. Am. 
612-3. Am. 

614. Owen's Coll. 
615-33. Am. 

634. Bod. Gr. class. 

d. 73 (P)• 

635. Bod. Gr. class, 
i. 86 (P). 

636. Graz. 

637. Vict. 
633-43. Am. 

644. Graz. 

645. Am. 
647. Graz. 
648-50. Am. 

651. Belfast. 

652. Am. 

Fayum Papyri. 

1. Camb. 4070. 

2. B. M. 1192. 

3. B. M. 815. 

4. B. M. 816. 

5. Dr. W. C. Win 


6. Cairo 10764. 

7. B. M. 817. 

8. Toronto. 

9. Am. 

10. Bod. Lat. class. ^. 


11. Cairo 10765. 

12. B. M. 818. 

13. Smiths. 217860. 

14. Am. 

15. Graz. 

16. B. M. 819. 

17. Bod. Gr. class. 

c. 52 (P). 

18. B. M.I 1 93. 

18 {a). B. M. 1 194. 

18 (3). Brussels. 

19-20. Am. 

21. Cairo 10766. 

22-3. Am. 

23(a). Bod. Gr. class, 

c• 53 (P)• 
24. Cairo 10869. 

25. Yale. 

26. Cairo 10767. 

27. Brussels. 

28. Vassar. 

29. Pennsyl. 2767. 
30-1. Toronto. 

32. Princeton 0132. 

340• 32• 

33. Johns Hopkins. 

34. Cairo 10768. 

35. Cairo 10769. 

36. Cairo 10770. 

37. Cairo 10235. 

38. B. M. 820. 

39. Cah-o 10771. 

40. Brussels. 

41. Smiths. 217853. 

42. Columbia. 
42(a). B. M. 1 195. 

43. B. M. 821. 

44. B. M. 822. 

45. B. M. 823. 

46. Owen's Coll. 

47. Cairo 10772. 
47 (a). Cairo 10773, 

48. Cairo 10774. 

49. Cairo 10775. 

50. Cairo 10776. 

51. Cairo 10777. 

52. Cairo 10778. 
52(a). Cairo 10779. 

53. Am. 

54. Cairo 10780. 

55. Vict. 

56. Cairo 10781. 

57. Cairo 10225. 
58-60. Am. 

61. Cairo 10782. 

62. Cairo 10221. 
63-5. Am. 

66. Cairo 10231. 

67. Vict. 

68. B. M. 824 (a). 

69. Cairo 10239. 

70. Cairo 10240. 

71. Pennsyl. 2768. 

72. Graz. 

73. Cairo 10236. 

74. Cairo 10237. 

75. Johns Hopkins. 

76. Princeton 0132. 
340. 76. 

76 (a). B. M. 824 ψ). 

77. Am. 

78. Smiths. 217856. 

79. Cairo 10241. 
80-1. Am. 

82. Cairo 10783. 

83. Cairo 10784. 

84. Cairo 10224. 

85. Cairo 10785. 

86. 86 (a). Am. 

87. B. M. 825. 

88. Pennsyl. 2769. 

89. B. M. 826. 

90. Cairo 10786. 

91. Cairo 10787. 

92. Harvard 2223. 

93. Brussels. 

94. Am. 

95. Cairo 10788. 

96. Cairo 10789. 

97. Cairo 10790. 

98. Cairo 10791. 

99. Cairo 10792. 

100. Cairo 10793. 

101. Smiths. 2 1 785 1. 

102. Cairo 10794. 

103. Am. 

104. Cairo 10795. 

105. B. M. 1 1 96. 

106. Am. 

107. Cairo 10796. 

108. Cairo 10797. 

109. Cairo 10798, 

110. Am. 

111. Vict. 



112. Smiths. 217852. 

113. Am. 

114. Cairo 10799. 

115. Am. 

116. Graz. 

117. Am. 

118. Bristol. 
119-20. Am. 

121. Cairo 10800. 

122. Cairo 10801. 

123. Cairo 10802. 

124. Cairo 10803. 

125. Cairo 10804. 

126. Cairo 10805. 

127. Cairo 10243. 

128. Cairo 10806. 

129. Cairo 10807. 

130. Cairo 10808. 

131. Cairo 10809. 

132. Rugby. 

133. Cairo 10795. 

134. Cairo 10810. 

135. Columbia. 

136. Cairo 10811. 
137-8. Am. 

139. Cairo 10812. 

140. B. M. 

141. Cairo 10217. 

142. Cairo 10247. 

143. Cairo 10242. 

144. Cairo 102 19. 

145. Am. 

146. Bolton. 
147-50. Am. 

151. B. M. 827. 

152. Cairo 10220. 

153. Graz. 

154. Am. 

155. Vict. 

156. Am. 

157. Harvard 2224. 
158-9. Am. 

160. Cairo 102 18. 

161. Cairo 10234. 

162. Cairo 10232. 

163. Cairo 10233. 

164. Columbia. 

165. Johns Hopkins. 

166. Princeton 0132. 
340. 166. 

167. B. M. 828(a). 

168. Harvard 2225. 

169. B. M. 82 8(3). 

170. Toronto. 

171. Glasgow. 

172. B. M. 828(4 

173. B. M. 828 (i/). 

174. Pennsyl. 2770. 

175. Edinburgh. 

176. Vassar. 

177. Camb. 4071. 

178. Camb. 4072. 

179. B. M. 828(f). 

180. Yale. 

181. B. M. 828(/). 

182. Owen's Coll. 

183. Hamilton. 

184. B. M. 828 (^). 

185. B. M. 828 (Λ). 

186. Melbourne Pap. 

187. B. M. 828(0. 

188. B. M. 828 {k). 

189. St. Andrews. 
190-5. Am. 

196. Pennsyl. 2771. 

197. Harvard 2226. 

198. Cairo 10230. 

199. Cairo 10227. 

200. Cairo 10228. 

201. Cairo 10245. 

202. Cairo 10246. 

203. Cairo 10226. 

204. Cairo 10244. 

205. Cairo 10222. 

206. Cairo 10223. 

207. Cairo 10229. 

208. Brussels. 

209. Cairo 10813. 

210. Cairo 10814. 

211. Yale. 

212. Cairo 10815. 

213. Cairo io8i6. 

214. Columbia. 

215. Cairo 108 17. 

216. Princeton 0132. 
340. 216. 

217. Brussels. 
218-9. Am. 

220. Cairo 10818. 

221. Cairo 10819. 

222. Am. 

223. Cairo 10820. 

224. Cairo 10821. 

225. Am. 

226. Smiths. 2 1 7859 

227. Am. 

228. Brussels. 

229. Graz. 

230. Am. 

231. Cairo 10822. 

232. B. M. 829. 

233. B. M. 830. 

234. B. M. 831. 

235. B. M. 832. 

236. B. M. 833. 

237. Cairo 10823. 

238. Cairo 10824. 

239. Am. 

240. Cairo 10825. 

241. Am. 

242. Cairo 10826. 

243. Am. 

244. Cairo 10827. 
245-7. Am. 

248. Liverpool. 

249. Brussels. 
250-1. Am. 

252. Vict. 

253. Am. 

254. B. M. 1 197. 
255-8. Am. 

259. B. M. 1 198. 

260. Graz. 

261. Am. 

262. Brussels. 

263. Am. 

264. Graz. 

265. Am. 

266. Vict. 
267-8. Am. 

269. Brussels. 

270. Graz. 
271-7. Am. 

278. Cairo 10828. 

279. Cairo 10829. 

280. Cairo 10830. 

281. Cairo 10831. 

282. Cairo 10832. 

283. Cairo 10833. 

284. Cairo 10834. 

285. B. M. 1 199. 

286. Cairo 10835. 

287. Cairo 10836. 

288. Cairo 10837. 

289. Cairo 10838. 

290. Cairo 10839. 
291-3. Am. 

294. Cairo 10840. 

295. Smiths. 217855. 

296. Am. 

297. Brussels. 

298. Smiths.217857. 

299. Am. 

300. Cairo 1084 1. 

301. Cairo 10842. 

302. Cairo 10843. 

303. Cairo 10844. 

304. Am. 

305. Cairo 10845. 

306. Am. 

307. Vict. 

308. B. M. 834. 

309. Cairo 10846. 

310. Pennsyl. 2772. 

311. Cairo 10847. 

312. Cairo 10848. 

313. Bod. Gr. class. 
d. 71 (P). 

314-7. Am. 

318. Cairo 10849. 

319. Cairo 10850. 
320-1. Am. 

322. Graz. 

323. Cairo 10851. 

324. Bod. Gr. class. 

c. 51 (P). 

325. Bod. Gr. class. 

d. 72 (P). 

326. Cairo 10852. 

327. Cairo 10853. 

328. Cairo 10854. 

329. Brussels. 

330. Cairo 10855. 

331. Am. 

332. Cairo 10856. 

333. Am. 

334. Cairo 10857. 

335. Am. 

336. Smiths. 217854. 



337. Cairo 10858. 

338. Am. 

339. Cairo 10859. 

340. Cairo 10860. 

341. Graz. 

342. Cairo 10861. 

343. Am. 

344. Cairo 10862. 

345. Cairo 10863. 

346. Cairo 10864. 
347-8. Am. 

349. Pennsyl. 2773. 

350. Harvard 2227. 

351. Yale. 

352. Columbia. 

353. Johns Hopkins. 

354. Princeton 0132. 

340• 354- 

355. Hamilton. 

356. Princeton 0132. 

340• 356• 

357. Columbia. 

358. JohnsHopkins. 

359. Pennsyl. 2774. 

360. Harvard 2228. 

361. Yale. 

362. Harvard 2229. 

363. JohnsHopkins. 

364. Princeton 0132. 
340. 364. 

365. Columbia. 

366. Yale. 



αβάστακτος p. 202. 

αγαθοί 664. iQ ; 666. 115; 

670. 12. 
Άγασικλης 659. 5θ• 
aytcv 663. 35. 
άγΚαίζίσθαι 659. 93. 
αγλαόί 659. 27; 674. γ. 

'Aypo^iOf 664. 33) 45• 
Άγρα 662. 53• 
άγρΐντηρ 662. 46 (?). 
άγριος 661. 3 (?)• 
Ά8(ίμαντος 664. 105• 

aet 667. 8 ; 670. 4- 

ae'^eii/ 662. 47 • 
άόίίι /aros 659. 1 4, 24. 

Αθηνά 663. 15- 

Άθηναζΐ 664. Ι5• 

Αραιοί 663. 48 ; 664. 3 ; 

680. 6; 682. ι6, 
άθρύν 671. 1 6. 

αϊγ8ον ρ. 263. 
atyX^fir 671. 3• 
ateiv 660. 8. 
Αίολάδαί 659. 12, 29• 
αίρεΓι/ 665. 2 2 ; 681. 7- 
αισχρός, αΐσχιστος 666. ΙΙ9• 

aiVj^vi/fiv 655. 23 ; 666. 48. 

αΐι^τηρός 659. 37• 
άκατάσχ(τος 684. Ι9• 
άκατος 683. 15- 
ακίνητος 663. Ι5• 
ακμι; 684. 13• 

άκ^ι?? 662. 51. 

{α) Greek. 

άκουΐΐν 663. 23. 

Άκραγαντϊνοι 665. 12, 1 6, 20, 

άκρόπολί? 662. 4θ (?)• 
Άκρωρίτης 662. 42, 5°• 
άκώλυτοί 684. 21. 
Άλί^άι/δρεια 675. 4• 
Άλ(ξαν8ρος 663. 29} 34 > 

679. 3. 

αληθίΐα 654. 38. 
αληθής 664. 92, ΙΟ3. 
αλίΟί 660. ΙΟ. 

αλλά 659. 26, 68 ; 662. 27 ; 

671. 17; 679. 7- 
Άλλος 664. 23, 28, 95; β70. 

Ι ; 681. 6. 

αλμυρός 659. 8 1. 
αλο;^ο$ 662. 49• 
αλί 661. 26. 
άλυκΓοπ/δαι 670. 5 (?)• 
αμαρτία 664. 98. 
αμμορος 660. 2. 
άμτνυρίζΐΐν 661. 1 7• 
Ά/Λυιταϊ 662. 21, 32. 

άμφί 659. 53. 59• 

άμφιβαίνΐΐν 670. 7• 

άμφικτίονΐς 659. 55• 

αϊ/ 654. 4 ; 659. 1 1 ; 662. 

34 (?) ; 663. 43 ; 664.93; 
666. 1 62; 670. ΐ; 671.1. 

ανάγκη 659. 1 8. 
avaepTUv 662. 53• 
άναζΐϊν 684. 1 6. 

άναπαύισθαι 654. 8. 
ανάρσιος 660. 2. 
άναστρ€φίΐν 680. 8. 
Άνΐυ 666. 153 (•'')• 
άνηρ 659. 8, 48, 66; 662. 
29; 664. 99; 682. 1 6. 

άνθος 662. 2 2. 

άνθρωπος 654. 22 ; 664. ΙΟΙ. 

ανιαρός 659. 1 9. 

ανίκητος 662. 35• 

άνοιγννναι 655. 46. 

άντιάζίΐν 672. 7. 

Αντίπατρος 662. 48. 

άντρηΐς 662. 49• 

άνύτερον 667. 28, 

α|ίθΓ 662. 112, Ιΐ6(.?). 

αξίωμα 684. 7. 

αοίδτ? 659. 35. 49; 660. 

απα£ 666. 1 6 2. 
άπύρατος 660. Ι. 

από 654. 29 ; 655. Ι, 2 ; 
660. 6. 

αποδημ€Ϊν 664. 2. 
αποδημία 664. 8, 8θ. 
άτΓοκαλυτΓτβιΐ' 654. 29• 
άποκνύν 654. 2 2. 
άποκρύπτ(ΐν 654. 39• 
'Απόλλων 674. 8 (.?). 
άποστίλλΐΐν 663. 4 1 ; 679. 3> 

άποφ(ύγ(ΐν 682. 14. 
άπροφασίστως 666. 1 68. 

Excluding 658 and 669, which are classed with the non-literary documents. 



αηωθ( ββΐ. 1 5- 

ιφα 660. 15; 670. 8, 17. 
αρά 678. 6 (?). 

άρ-γηΚίος 662. 25• 
άρΐτη 659. 9• 

"Apjjs 662. 34• 
apws (?) 661. 3• 
^Αρίφρων 664. 102. 
άρρηφοράν 664. 32. 

ap^eij^ 664. 94) 95) 96• 

^ApxiXaos p. 261. 

(ίρχΐ7 664. 2, 113, ^^7- 

ασίϊ ρ. 2 02. 

ασκΐττος 662. 37" 

άστνφελικτος 670. 9J Ρ• 201 

are 684. Ι 7. 

ore/ci/os 662. 3Ο• 

arpfKfS 671. 3• 

ατρίστος 662. 33• 

Άττ«»7 680. 5• 

ατυχία 666. 63. 

αυ^ί 661. 2 6. 

αυ^ΐϊ (aSns) 661. 23. 

ανΧίσκοί 659. 34• 

αΰ|άΐ'6ΐΐ' 655. 9• 

ai!|eii' 659. 129• 

ηΰτίκα 660. 12. 

αίτοκραΓωρ 684. Ιο. 

αυτόματος 670. 3• 

ai-roy 654. 32; 655. 15, Ι7. 

ι8; 662. 51, 52; 663. 4> 

13, 1 8, 44; 664. ^eisaep.; 

666. 5ο(.?), 117; 670. 2; 

680. 7; 681. 2; 682. 1 1. 
αυχμαλίοί 662. 2 2. 
'Αφροδίτη 663. 17- 

Άχαιο'ί 662. 35 ; 663. 24, 37• 

βα81ζ€ίΐ> 664. 44• 
βαίνίΐρ 659. 74• 

Βακχίάδαι 664. ΙΙ5• 

βαρύς 667. 21. 

βασιλίία 654. II, 15; 679. 

βασιΚ(ΰ(ίν 654. 8. 
βασ-ιλίύς 671. 4, 14(0) ^ΐ; 

684. 7, 12, Ι7• 

βίαιος 659. 17. 
βυηβΐΐα 665. 4• 
βουλ[ 664. 132. 

βούλ€σθΜ 664. Ι04; 684. 3• 

Bope'as 659. 38. 

βρίθε»/ 660. 4• 

βροτοΓ 659. 7, 14; 660. 2 1(?). 

βυρο-α 662. 45• 

yap 659. 20, 23, 71; 664. 
23, 44, 83. 99; 666. 51^ 
156; 667. 23; 670. 18 ; 
684. 13, 17• 

ye 661. 23; 662. 30. 

ydTmv 677. 2. 

Τίλα 665. 3• 

Γ(λωοί 665. 5, 1 6. 

•yews 659. 13• 

yeveaOai 654. 5• 

yn 654. 13; 660. 14• 

yiyveaOai 659. 20 ; 662. 27, 

30; 665. 14; 666. 164; 
667. 27; 681. 8; 682. g; 
684. 12 ; p. 261. 

yiyvaiaKfiv 654:. 17, 1 8, 20. 
Γλαυκών 665. ΙΟ. 

Γληνις 662. 43, 47, 53. 

y\iaxpos 678. 7• 
γλυ4 673. 3• 
yλυκ(pόs 670. 2 5- 
')/λώσσα 659. 47• 
yvapTTTeiv 660. 8. 
•}/ΐ'ώρίροί 667. 27. 

yoi/euy 659. 52 J 662. 26. 
γοΟι/ 664. 87. 

•yvi/J7 659.48; 662.24; 663. 
39 ; 664. 58. 

δαώαΚΧΐΐν 659. 44• 
^αισιστρότα 659. 75• 
δάκρυ 662. 2 2. 
δαμάζΐΐν 659. 1 8. 
όίάμαινα 659. 7 Ο. 
δαπάι/τ; 664. 2 8. 
δάφνη 659. 28, 73• 

Δί[ 671. 2. 

δβίκί/υι/αι 662. 54 ; 679. 43• 

bfiv 666. 61. τα δίοντα 666. 

^ΐ\φoί 674. 4- 

δίρκΐσθαι 662. 40. 
δερ/χα 662. 52. 

SeVts 679. 15(0• 


δηθΰνην 671. 21. 

δ^ρ« 662. 34; 670. 23• 

δημοκρατία 682. Ι, 15 (0• 

διά 663. 46; 664. 13. 23, 
36, Ι07 ; 666. 115; 687. 

διαβά\λ(ΐν 664. 29. 
διάζ^υξίί 667. 8. 
δίαλΐγ(σθαί 663. g. 
διaμipίζfιv 679. II. 
διατρίβΐΐν 664. ΙΟ. 
διαφερην 664. 21. 
διάφορος 684. 8. 
διδάσκείΐ/ 672. 6. 

δίδόι/αι 655. 15; 659. 68; 
662. 29 ; 675. 15. 

δικαστηριον 682. Ι3• 

δίκη 659. 68. 
δίκτυον 661. 7• 
διο 666. 6ι. 
Αιονυσι[ 683. 9• 
Δίοι/υσαλί^ανδροί 663. 2 6. 
Αιόνυσος 663. II, 4^ ; 670. 

δίχα 672. 9- 
δι>|^^ι/ 659. 8ι. 
δοκείι; 664. 39) 97; 679. ι6. 

δόμος 662. 3Ι• 

δόρυ 660. 3 ; 662. 35• 
δράμα 663. 45• 
δρυμονόμος 662. 56 (0• 
δύναμις 666. 165. 

δύνασθαι 667. 1 6 ; 678. 6(?). 

δυνατός 664. 6. 
δώδεκα 677. 9• 
δωροί' 662. 43• 

eoj/ 666. 105 ; 67β. Ι. 
ίαυτοϋ 654. 1 8, 2θ; 663.31• 

eyfipdv 670. 23• 

eyKelaOai 659. 48• 

eyxeipiCeiv 666. 160. 

«7X0? 670. 20. 

ίγώ 659. 45, 49) 1°'> 661. 7, 

2θ, 24 ; 662. 28 ; 664. 6 

et saep.\ 670. 23. 
ά 664. 92. 

itoeVat 659. 45; 670. 17. 
άκότως 684. Ι3• 
ζΧναι 654. 13 ί'^ •ί"β<?/'• ; 655. 



8, 20, 28; 659. 15; 660. 
2, 9 ; 662. 24 ; 664. 5, 
41, 44, 92; 666. 112, 117, 
170; 667. 19, 23; 670. 
11; 674. 3(.?); 678. 2; 
684. 2, II, 13, 17, 19. 
it's 663. 20, 23, 30, 31; 664. 
40; 666. 163; 672. 9; 

679. 18, 41; 680. 9; 
683. 6. es 659. 51; 662. 

(h 655. 1 1 ; 662. 30; 684. 2. 
(laaYyik'ia 682. 8. 
ΐΐσίρχίσθαι 655. 44, 45. 

ίΓτ6 667. 3, 4, 5> 7• 
« 661. 28; 662. 24, 26, 36; 
676. 12; 677. 2. 

ίκαστος 682. 4• 
(KOTepos 663. 35• 
(κδώάσκίΐν 672. 8. 
(κ^ΰΐσβαί 655. 2 2. 

Ικάνος 661. 20 ; 664. 77• 
€κθρώσκ(ΐν 662. 39• 
Έλί!/?? 663. 2 1, 38. 
(λκ(ίν 654. ΙΟ. 
Έλλί?ΐΊκο5 679. Ι. 
f/io'f 659. 80; ββΐ. 21 ; 671. 

ΐμπροσθΐν 654. 27. 
(μφανής 655. Ι9• 
ίμφασίί 663. 47• 

eV 654. 11; 659. 27, 58, 61; 
663. 45; β64• 9, 29, 44, 
97; 665. ι; 667. 2, 4, 
15, 28; 675. ι6; 679. 2; 

680. ίο; 682. 3, ΐ2; 
683. 12. 

(νηρμόνιος 667. Ι. 
ΐν8ύ(σθαι 655. 6. 
ίνδνμα 655. II, 1 6. 

ίνικΐν 659. 66. 
fvepyearepos 684. 5• 
ivUvai 659. 65. 
ίντανθα 664. 1 6. 
(ντΐΰθ^ν 664. 8. 
«Vros 654. 16. 
fi 661. 26. 
f^ayeLv 663. 2 2. 
ίξαυτης 667. Ι4• 
(ξίρχ(σθαι. 680. 4• 

ίξ(τάζ(ΐν 654. 32. 

ίξί,ϊ 667. 5• 

ί^ΐί 664. 131 (?)• 

ί'^ουσ/α 666. 159; 684. ι8. 

ίοικίναι 664. 91. 
inayeiv 663. 47• 
ΐπαν€ρχ(σθαι 663. 22; 664. 

ίπασκΐίν 659. 75• 
(πΐώη 664. 2. 
Ιπ^ίΐτα 659. 65 ; 667. 2. 
ίπίρηστο! 663. 1 8. 
ίπΐρωταν 654. 23. 
ίπίσθαι 659. 7ΐ• 
eVt 655. 14 ; 659. 8, 12, 57 ,' 

661. 20; 663. 35; 665. 

12 ; 667. 20, 22. 
(πιβουλΐναν 664. 4• 
eViSiSoVni 664. 25. 
ΐτη<ατΐχ(ΐν 663. 39• 
ίπιμΐΚΐΐα 679. 6. 
ΐπιμιγι>νναι 659. 25. 
ΐτΐΐσκώπτΐΐν 663. II. 
(πίσπ€ρχ(ΐν 659. 3^. 
(πιτρίβΐΐν 680. 13. 
inirponos 664. 42• 
εποί 659. 44• 
ίπταίτις 662. 30. 
«πτάττυλυ? 659. 64. 
επωδι^ 661. 21. 
€ράι/ 664. 32. 
ΐρατός 660. 14. 
epyov 684. 2. 
epdnav 662. 36. 
epts 659. 67. 
Έρμ^ί 663. 5• 
ίρχ(σθαι 659. 51 ; 661. 23, 

25 {(νθτ,ς, ηνθή ; 662. 29. 
is 659. 51 ; 662. 29. 
(σθ'κιν 655. 4• 
ί'σλο'ί 659. 52. 
ίσπίρα 655. 2. 
ίστία 659. 92. 
έσχατος 654. 2 0. 
en 662. 30. 

erepos 664. 95; 684. II. 
(vitpos 675. 14. 
fvK\(T]t 659. 59• 

fviav 684. 9. 
ΐϋπετοΧο! 659. 73• 

ΐνρίσκΐΐν 654. 7, 17; 664. 

evri/;,^ia 659. I3; 663. 16. 
ΐϋφρωρ 659. *]i. 
(ΰχΐσθαι 659. II. 

e'xeti/ 655. II ; 659. 9 ; 663. 

39; 664. 100; 670. 20; 

671. 15; 684. 4. 
ίχθρός 659. 67; 676. 15. 
fas 655. I ; 670. 9 (?). 

ζ(vyvvvaι 659. 79• 
Ze{)i 659. 45; 664. 103. 
Ζΐφνροί 659. 36. 
ζην 654. 2. 

Zi/foSoros p. 261. 

ζητ^Ίν 654. 6 ; 663. 2 (.?) 

666. 165. 
ζώείν 659. 19. 
ζωννυναι 659. 26. 

η 663. 27. 

V 660. 5; 664. I, 94; 667. 

I, 17, 18; 684. 5(?), 7. 
η 662. 30. 
^yuadai 659. 7 1. 
ήγ(μών 662. 50. 

η8€ 662. 49. 

ηδη 664. 7, 19. 
η8υνη 664. 44• 

Tjidfos 660. 4. 

νϊώι/ 659. 58 ; 673. 7• 

lyiiftf 664. 12. 

ηλικία 655. 14; 662. 29. 

ήΧικιώτης 664. 2 2. 

Tjpe'is 654. 10; 655. 19- 

ήμερα 659. 1 5. 
ήμΐτερος 670. 19, 24. 
ημί 661. 2 4. 
ησυχία 679. 8. 

θάλασσα 654. 14; 661. 28. 
θαλάσσιο5 684. Ι4• 
θάλλαν 659. 3Ι• 
^άλοί 659. 48• 
θαμβΐΐν 654. 7• 
θάπτ€ΐν 654. 3Ι• 

(960 673. 9• 

^eariif 663. 7• 

ίίίοί 659. 3• 



θψΐθλα 674. 5. 

θίόκριτος 662, 28. 
ueos 677. 9. 
^ίράττωι/ 673. I (?). 
θΐσττίσιος 660. 6 ; 671. ΙΟ. 
θίωρς'ιν 666. 63. 
Θν3αι 6'59. 2 5. 
θψ 672. 8. 
^vpt'o'' 661. II. 

θνησκΐίν 662. 2 5, 2 7• 
θνητοί 659. Ιδ• 
θρασν^ουλοί 664. 17, 35• 
θυγάτηρ 659. 72,' 664. 3Ι• 
θϋμα 675. 15• 
θυμό: 684. 17• 
θύ)μά( 654. 3• 

*ΐδ.7 ββ3. 23. 

ίδιοί 674. 7• 

«τταιάν ΟΓ 1(παιηων 660. 2 ^/ 

ίβραπόλοϊ 659. 6. 
ifpo'r 661. 16; 674. 6 (ίαροΊ); 

Ίι^σονϊ 654. 2 ί/ ίί7έ/!'. 
Ίμ(ίρ(ΐν 671. 2 2. 
Ίμίραϊοι. 665. Ι5• 
l-mrtCs 679. 20. 
Ίππόβοτο! 673. 4• 
ϊππος 659. 5^• 
ίπποτροφία 664. 27. 
Ιστορία 683. Ι3• 
Ίτωι/ί'α 659. 59• 
Ίφθιμος 662. 54• 
t'x^vs 654. 14. 
Ίωοια 664. 9• 

KaSanfp 667. 26. 

καθηκίΐν 681. 13- 

καθιστάναι 679. ΙΟ. 

κακοΓ 678. 4• 

Κάκυροι/ 665. 2. 

καλίίι/ 664. 114; β81. Ι5• 

Κα.\>.ιτ€λης 662. 2 7, 3Ι• 
καλός 662. 53• "ηλόϊ Κ(ΐγ<ι^οί 
664. 19- κάλλιστοι 663. 


κάματο: 659. 19- 
«cQjTi'uf 662. 39• 
κάπρο! 662. 5ΐ• 

κάρα 659. ΙΟ, ^2. 

κατά 663. 1 6 ; 664. ιοί. 
καταγράν 661. 27 (.'*). 
καταλαμ^άνίΐν 664. Ι 8. 
κατάΚΐίπαν 664. 15, 37> 4^• 
Karapivetv 664. 6. 
κατάρροο! 661. 5• 
κατάσΓασίί 664. 2 4• 
κατΐχΐΐν 675. 3• 
KfizOs 659. 36. 
κήσβαι 659. 8 ; 667. 3• 

κελαδο! 675. 12. 

KfXtCfLv 664:. 14,129; 678. ι. 

κίντρον 676. ΙΟ. 

Kepaia (οΓ άκφαως .?) 655. 49• 

κίράστης 662. 49- 

<ce>os 683. 18. 

ΚιλικίΓ 680. Ι. 

Κιλικία 679. 2. 

κλΐΐτός 671. 6 (?). 

κλύίΐί/ 671. 17- 
κλυτός 659. 58• 
κνίσα 660. 6. 

/coti/of 667. 2 2. 

κοινωνΐΐν 667. 12. 
ΑίολασίΓ 684. 2 Ι. 

κομίζΐΐν 664. 98 ; 683. 19• 
κόμπος 659. 33• 
κορΰσσίΐν 660. 5• 
κυσμΐ'Ίν 659. 6θ. 
κόσμος 655. 20. 

κοΟροΓ 662. 54 ; Θ71. 1 8. 

Κραστός 665. 1 3, Ι5• 

κρατΐ'ιν 664. 113 ; 681. 5• 

Κρατίνος 663. 2 8. 

κρύσσων 655. 7• 

κριίΐΊ? 659. 8ο. 

/cptVfiv 659. 7 ; 663. 19• 

κρίνον 655. 8. 

κριοί 663. 3ΐ• 

Κρονίδαι 659. 12. 

κρνπτΐΐν 655. 43 > 659- ίο ; 

663. 3ΐ• 
κρυπτός 654. 3^• 
κτήμα 666. 1 1 8. 
κίρα 684. Ι4(?)• 

κνμαίνειν 684. 1 6. 
κυνηγεσία 662. 43 Ό" 
κννηγία 664. 27. 
Κύπ -pos 680. ΙΟ. 

τ 2 

Acuptor 654. 2 (?); 633. ι. 

Κυι/^ίλοΓ 684. III. 
κνων 666. 52 (?). 
κώλυαν 668. 6ΐ. 
κωρωδεΐί» 663. 44• 

Αακ(8αίμων 662. 33 ! 663. 21. 

λαλάν 654. Ι ; 677. 6. 
Xap^ai/iti» 664. Ι, 113, Ι '6; 
679. 9• 

λανθάνΐΐν 659. 49• 

Xfyet:/ 654. 3 ^^ •S''^'?/'• ; 655. 

17, 21; 659. 47; 661. 

22; 662. 24; 664. 103, 

110; 666. 109; 687. 25; 

671. Ι. 
λείπίΐν 662. 31 ; 670. 3• 

Α€ωνίδης 662. 41, 55" 
ληγιιν 661. ΐ8. 

λιπότΐκνος 659. 1 6. 
λόγος 654. Ι, 4• 
Xoerpoi/ 662. 39• 
Αοξίας 659. 23. 
λού«υ 670. 6. 
λυπίΐν 677. 3• 
XvCTtreXflf 664. 93• 
λώτινος 659. 34• 

μαθητής 655. 1 8. 
μακάριος 654. 40• 

μάλα 663. 46; 664. 19, 43; 
684.13- ράλλοι/664. 94; 
684. 6. μάλιστα 660. 4; 
664. 12. 

μαλακός 659. 2 7• 

ραλάσσ€ΐ;' 659. 4^ (ταράσσίΐν 


μανθάνΐΐν 666. 1 63. 
ράντίί 659. 5• 
μαρτνράν 684. ΙΟ4. 
μαρτί'ρΐσθαι 660. Ι 6. 
μάρτυς 659. 5Ι• 
μάχαιρα 666. 156. 
ρά;^'/ 665. 8, 17- 
μεγαλοφυία 664. 2 5• 
peyoi 664. 108, 116; 680. 
3; 684. 17. 

μΐΐράκιον 664. Ι 8. 

μέλας 659. ΙΟ. MeXar ρ. 201. 

μέλλίΐν 680. 9 (?); 683. 33• 


μίλοί 675. 13' 

μΐλπ€ΐν 675. 2, II. 

μ(λω8ΐΊν 667. 6. 

^€^'659. 43' 46; 660. 8 ; 

662. 26; 663. 7, Η• 38; 
664. 91 ; 667. ι, 8; 676. 
9; 681. 6, ιι; 684. 8, 
1 3' ^3• Μ*'' ^^'^ 664. 1 6. 

/xeVo? 661. 3• 
μΐριμνα 659. 66. 
iiept's 679. 13 (?). 
μΐρος 667. 4• 
μ€ση 667. 9> Ι?» 1 8. 

/χίτά 663. 20, 23 ; 664. 9• 
μίτασκίνάζ^ιν 663. 32. 
μΐταχρόνιος 660. Ι3• 

/χή 654. 6, 37; 655. 23; 
659. ι6, 8ο; 661. 23; 

663. 4; 664. 85; 666. 
156, 158; 670. 23; 679. 
7, 9• ου /ii)j 654. 5• 

μ»^δ€ 662. 52. 

/tijjSfis 659. 9; 666. III. 

/n^Sos 659. 76. 

μητΐ 655. 2, 3; 666. 57• 

μητηρ 664. 37• 

μιμνησκ(ΐν 659. 35; 670. 


Μίΐ/ωα 665. 1 8. 

/ιόΐΌϊ 662. 33 ; 681. ι 2. 

μΰβοί 661. 1 8. 

μύρεσθαι 662. 38. 

μνριάί 662. 36. 

μνρίοί 659. 78• 

i/atfti' 659. Ιθ5(?). 

ναοί 659. 59• 

mCs 660. 4 ; 663. 36. 

veKpos p. 261. 

i/fKrop 659. 80. 

veos 662. 5 1• vearepos 664. 

W7 664. 103. 
νηθ(ΐν 655. ΙΟ. 
N77p?;t'f 672. 5. 
νήστευαν 654. 33. 
yijTi? 667. 9, 17, 19. 
N.( )(?)671. 3. 
viKCLv 663. 19. 
i'tK7 659. 57. 


viv 676. 13. 
νόμος 682. 2, II, 
]νομος 673. 5- 

ι/όίτοί 662. 25, 

Νονμηνιος 677. 7• 
ioCs 664. 100. 
νύμφη 662. 42, 46• 

vdv 659. 54) 70, 80; 662. 

35; 671. 12; 681. 13. 

νννί 664. ιο6. 
ννξ 660. ΐ5• 

$evos 662. 26; 665. 2, 6, 9, 

οβριμοπάτρη 673. 2 (.''). 
Όγχηστός 659. 58. 

δδί 659. 66 ; 662. 45> 46 (?), 

51 ; 677. Ι. 
όδο'ί 659. 72. 

οίκΐ'ίος 664. ΙΟΙ. 
οίκΐώτηί 664. Ι3• 
οϊκίζίΐν 665. Ι9• 
οΓκοΓ 659. 17; 684. 40. 
οΙκτ(Ίρ{ΐν 663. 38. 
ο ιστός 660. 3• 
ο'ίχίσθαι 659. 82. 
οΙωνός 662. 37• 
OKveiv 663. 37• 
οκτάχορδης 667. 24. 

ολίγος 663. 24; 664. 119. 
όλος 667. 4• 
"Όλυ/ζποί 673. 5 (?)• 
ό/χαλόϊ 659. 14. 
6μολογ(2ν 666. 102. 

ό/χοί 662. 56(?); 675. 6. 
ΌμφάΚός 665. Ι. 
Όνη(σι)φάνης 662. 54• 
δι/ομα 662. 26. 
οι/ο/χαστόί 683. 3• 
οξνς 684. Ι9• 
οπόταν 659. 37• 
όπότί 667. 29. 

όρ5ΐ'655. 21 ; 662.37; 664. 
32 ; 670. 21 (.?). 

ορπαξ 659. 27. 
ορφανός 664. 37• 
δς 654. 3°, 31 ; 659. 36, 
48,58,75; 662. 28; 664. 

34; 666. 1 65; 676. 13; 

678. 5(?)• 
όσος 664. 89. 
δστις 654. 1 2 ; 655. g ; 659. 

όταν 654. 7 ; 655. 22; 666. 

54, ιΐ3• 
δτι 654. 2 5; 664. 3; 671.8. 
ov8e 655. 10. 
ovbfls 664. 25; 684. 15• 
Olivets 664. 96• 
ού μη 654. 5• 

ονν 664. ι6, 33, Ι02, ΐ2θ. 

ονπω 671. 19, 20. 
ουρανός 654. II, 12. 

οΰτβ 659. 48 ; 664. 93, 95• 
οΐτος 654. 4 ; 660. 8 ; 662. 
44, 5ο; 663. 6, 19, 2θ, 
38; 664. 92, no, 117; 
666. 62, 157 ; 667. 22, 
23; 670. 26; 682. 10. 

οΰτοσ'ι 664. Ιθ6. 
οί;Γω684. Ι5• ού'τ-ωί 664. 9Ι• 
οχάν 659. 2 8. 
'όψις 654. 28; 664. 2θ ; 

684. ΙΟ. 

ΤΙα-γων^ας 659. 3°• 

παιάν 675. Ι, 12. 

naibevfiv 684. 6. 

Παίονις 681. 1 4. 

παίϊ 659. 7ο ; 662. 31 ; 664. 

ι6; 666. 156; 670. 26; 

671. 22. 
παλ[ 670. 21. 
πάλαι 659. 54; 676. ι7; 

684. ι8(?), 
Ιίαλαίμονΐς 661. 9, ^3• 
παΧίγγλωσσος 659. 67• 
πάμπαν 659. Ι7• 
ηάν 662. 42, 46, 5θ• 
πάι/δο^οϊ 659. 28. 
πάντοθΐν 670. 7• 
πάι/υ 664. Ιθ8. 
πάππος 664. 33• 

παρά 659. 8ι ; 663. 14, ΐ5; 

664. 34- 
παραγίγν^σθαι 663. 12, 33 > 

664. ιο6. 



rrapahihovai 663. 36, 40 ; 679. 

napaKCiKfiv 663. 42• 
ΤταραΚαμβάναν 683. 21 (?). 
παρατηρίΐν 654. 35. 
ηαραφαίν€ΐν 663. ΙΟ. 
napflvai 670. 1 8. 
τταρθΐνηίος 659. 4^• 
ηαρθίνιος 659. 32. 
Παρι/ασσόί 674. 5• 
πάροιθ( 659. 43• 
ττάροί 662. 33• 
7r5s 659. 8 ; 663. 4 (?) ', β64. 

26; 666. ιι8; 682. 2. 
ίτατήρ 654. 1 9 ; 664. 36, 5^, 

πάτρα 662. 24. 
πατρίς 664. ΙΟΟ. 
ΐΓαυ«ι/β82. 12. 7Γαυ€σίαι 654. 

ϊΓ€διλοι» 659. 74• 
τΓίδιΌι/ 662. 38. 
παθαρχύν 677. 4• 
π^ίθίΐν 664. 5• 
Π6ΐσ/στραΓ0Γ 664. Ι e/ saep. 
neXavos 675. 14• 
τΓί'πλοϊ 659. 26. 
wepi 654. 24. 
UtpiavSpos 664. 93 e/ saep. 
nepie'ivai p. 262. 
πιριζμυχηρος 662. 37. 

Πίρικλ^ί 663. 45• 

πfpi)^aμβάu(ιv 666. ΐ67• 

η€ριπΙπτ€ΐν 664. 109. 

ntTfivov 654. 12. 

Πίίρίδ« 673. I (?). 

πιθανός 663. 46; 664. 91- 

Πϊσα 659. 6ι. 

πιστοί 659. 5©, 69. 

πλύν 663. 2 ο. 

TrXiiW 66. Ιΐ6(!'). πλείστος 
681. 9• 

πλήόοί 664. 1 1 8. 

π•λι;σ(ά^ίΐΐ' 664. 120. 

]πλόκα/χοί 673. 9• 

7Γΐ/οή 659. 30. 

τΓοίίΐί' 654. 37 ; 66'*• 9 ) ^67. 


ποιητής 663. 8 (?). 
τΓοίοϊ 662. 25, 29. 


u/^epos 663. 16, 
μονδε 660. 5• 

48. πόλε 

μυνόί 6θϋ. 5• 
πόλΐί 664. 2 9, 114; 675. 5 ; 
682. 5- 


πολιτεία 683. 5• 
πολλάκις 660. 7 ; 662. 
πολνγνωτος 659. ^6. 
πολυποίκιλος 672. 9• 

λύί654. 2δ; 655.7; 659. 
43; 662. 34(0; 664. 2ΐ ; 

πολυποίκιλος 672. 9• 
πολυί654. 2 5 ; 655 

43; 662.34(0; - 
667. 6 ; 674. 8 (?). 

. ιλνωννμος 675. Ι7• 
πόντιας 673. 8. 



ποντιοϊ ο /ο. ο. 

πόντος 659. 39; 661. 

πορψΰρεος 671. Ι9• 

ποταμός ρ. 262. 

πότε 655. 19, 2θ. 

πότερον 667. Ι5• 

ποτ/, ποττάί 661. 1 6. 

πουί659. 7ο; 662.45; 670. 


πράγμα 664. 24 ; 684. 3• 

Ώραξώ 662. 2 6. 

πράσσειν 666. 5"• 

π[:\ρβαλον{^) 661. 2 7. 

πρέπειν 659. 45• 

πρεσβεν[ 683. 1 6. 

πρηνής 662. 36. 
Ι πριν 659. 20. 
Ι προ 664. III. 

προαιρειν 666. 59• 

προ^ώόναι 663. 43• 

προθυμως 664. 43• 

προλί-γειν 664. 3• 

προξενιά 659. 53• 

πρόϊ 663. 7 ; 664 
125; 665. ι6 


2 2. 

ΟΟ*. 12, 20, 21. 
προσέρχεσθαι 684. 6, 
πρόσθε 670. 12. 
προσιεναι 677. 5• 
προσκεΐσβαι 667. 2 1. 
προστάσσειν 663. 3". 
προστάτης 678. 5• 
προστιθίναι 655. Ι3• 
πρόσφορος 659. 49• 
πρότερον 664. Ι ; 681 

προτομή 662. 44, 5^• 
προφερειν 667. 29. 

25, 39> 

681. 12 ; 


πρυφενγειν 659. Ι9• 

πρόφρων 659. 24. 

πρόχειρος 684. 2 Ο. 

πρωί 655. Ι, 3• 

πρώτος 654. 25, 26; 659. 72. 

αυθω 660. 7 (?)• 

πυλ€π[ 661. Ι9• 

πυνθάνεσθαι 660. 7 (?)• 

πΟρ 684. Ι5• 

πνρ^ανον 661. Ι9• 

πυρπολεΐΐ' 663. 24• 

πως 654. 33. 34; 666. ι68. 

πως 666. 7θ. 

ρα 662. 3θ• 

ραδι'ωί 682. 13- 
ρηγννναι 662. 52• 
ρίζα 659. 62. 
ριπΐ7 659. 4°• 
ρίπτειν 661. 2 0. 
ρυ^ιοϊ 662. 45^ 

Ί,άμιος 662. 26. 

Ί,άτνρος 663. 42. 

σαννιαστής 681. 2 5• 

aetpiyi' 659. 33• 

σεμνός 659. 63. 

σημαίνειν 667. Ι4• 

σ;/ρα[ 659. 12 8. 

σθένος 659. 37• 

σιγά^"!' 659. 3^• 

σιγή 659. 9• 

σιδ;;ρ[670. Ι7• σιδ/;ρο'^ 660, 3• 

Έ,ιληνός 662. 49• 

σκήπτρον 671. 15, 20. 

σκοπιά 660. 12. 

Σόλοι 680. 9• 

Σόλων 664. ΙΟ, Ι4• 

σπάν QIQ. Ι4• 

σπιλάς 662. 23. 

σπονδή 675. 8. 

σπουδά^εΐί' 664. II. 

σταθμός 659. 29. 

στείχειν 659. 7Ι• 

στέφανος 659. 3Ι> 6θ. 

στεφειν 675. Ι3• 

στηλονν 662. 2 8. 

στολ[ 660. 19. 

στολή 655. 5• 

στρατεία 665. 3, ^3• 



στρατόπ(8οΡ 679. 12. 

συ 654. 28, 29; 655. 2 1 ; 
659. 71 Μ; ββΐ. 23 
(τυ); 664. Ι04; 671. 22 ; 
676. 9 ; 678. 4• 

σνγγ€ΐτων 662. 43• 

auyye^em 664. ΙΙ5• 

συγγείΊ^Γ 664. 40• 

σνμβαίνΐΐν 666. ιιο; 667- 

συμφορά 664. Ιθ8. 
συν 660. ΙΟ. 
συνπκολου^ίίΐ' 663. 4Ι• 
συναφή QQl . 3, H• 
συνδιατρίβ(ΐν 664. 45• 
σύνΐυνος 662. 2 8. 
2•υρακόσίοι 665. 4» 6, 8, 2 1. 
σύστημα 667. 13, 20, 3Ο• 
σφάλλαν 659. Ι7• 
σφάλοΓ 676. 1 6. 
σ;(€δόΐ' 659. 73• 
σχήμα 667. 23. 
σώμα 659. Ι5• 
σώφρων 659. 66. 

Γαλαροί 663. 3°• 

τατΓίΐίΌΰι/ 664. 2 2. 

τάρασσαν 659. 4^ (1• μαλάσ- 

σηνί); 684. 8. 
ΤαρτάρίΟί 670. 5• 
τάσσίΐι/ 659. 1 3. 

τάφοΓ 662. 28 ; 672. 7- 
TtXf'iv 659. 5• 

TfXevrap ρ. 201. 

rco'f 670. 14, 18. 

repiTtiv 674. 6. 

TfXfijeir 670. 1 1 (.!*). 

τ»7λ«όσδί 684. 23. 

tUiv 659. 92. 

n^eVat 666. i5(?); 680. 7 ; 

682. II. 
TiKTeiv 670. 10. 
Tt^av 659. 53; 672. 4. 
τψη 659. 6; 684. 20. 
m 663. 8; 664. 38, 128; 

666. 59; 667. 15; 684.4. 
rt'f 654. 35; 655. 4, 6, 12, 

13; 662. 24, 28; 664. 

99, no; 670. I ; 671. i; 

677. 6; 634. 8,9, 10. 

Tpapts p. 261. 
τοίνυν 664. 92. 

rotor 654. I. 
τoιόσbe 684. 2 2. 
τοιούτος 684. II. 

TOKtTOs 662. 27. 
το\μ[ 664. 64. 
Tovialos 667. 20. 

τόποί 654. 24; 667. 15. 
τραχύνΐΐν 664. 38. 
rpeii 667. 12, 25. 

τρ€φ€ΐν 664. 34. 

rpexfiv 677. 2. 

ΎρφάΚλοί 631. 6, ΙΟ. 

τρύτης 662. 3 1. 

rpt'f 662. 30. 

τρισσός 662. 36. 

rptTa[ 660. ΙΟ. 

τριώβοΧον 678. 3- 

rpo'rror 664. 20 ; 677. 5 ί 

684. 5- 
τύγχαναν 661. 17; 664. 35! 

666. 113; 677. 3; Ρ- 261. 

τυραννΰν 664. 7• 

Tvpavvis 663. 14 ; 664. 4• 

υΐο'ί 659. 3° ; 660. 9 ; 664. 
Ι20 ; 670. ιο; 671. 2. 

vpeis 654. 15 ^^ saep.; 655. 

4 ^/ ίβ^/>. ; 682, 4• 
υμνεϊν 659. 3ΐ• 
ΰρνοί 675. 9 (?)• 

ΰπάρχαν 663. 1 8. 

υττάττ; 667. 1 6. 

vTrep 664. 127. 

υπ(ρβάλλ€ίν 664. 2 6. 

ΰπίρβατως 667. 7• 

υπίρβολαία 667. 1 8. 

ΰπηρΐτης 679. 1 8. 

ύτΓο' 654. 13; 659. 9. 34; 
662. 22 25,35; 664.42, 
94 ; 665. 2θ ; 670. 24 ; 
679. 3; 680. 14- 

ΰποΚαμβάνΐΐν 664. 8 1, Ι02. 
υπόμεναν 663. 32• 
υποστρίφαν 680. 12. 
υστ^ρην 679. 4 (?)• 

φαίνίσθαι 667. 9• 

Ι φά^πί 664. 92, 97) ϊ°3' no; 

670. 8; 683. 4. 
φανΐρός 654. 30• 
φάσκΐΐν 663. 44• 
φάτν7 666. 53 ί•^)• 
φπΟλοί 664. 96; 666. 158. 
φ6ρ«ι/ 677. 8 (.?). 
<j!)evyetv 663. 25 ; 664. 1 18 ; 

666. 64. 
φθόνο! 659. 8. 
φθόρος 661. 15• 
φιλΐ'ιν 659. II, 69• 
Φίλο'ρ»;λοΓ 664. 17, 42. 

Φιλοποίμην 662. 35• 

φίλος 664. II ; 670. 6, 15. 

φιλτίροΓ 664. 99• φίλτατος 

664. 98. 

φίλοσοφΐΐν 666. 169. 
φιλοσοφία 666. 1 66. 
φιλοστίφανος 675. Ι. 
φρά^ίίί» 662. 24; 664. 1 1 1. 
φρΊσσΐΐν 659. 38; 662. 34• 
φρονί'ίν 659. 46. 
φρόνησις 666. ΐ6ΐ. 
φύσΐΓ 664. ΙΟΙ. 
φωραν 663. 34• 

φ(ύΤ(ΐνΟ! 655. 25. 

;^αι'τ7; 659. 6θ. 

;(αλίπαιν6ίΓ 664. 78 (?). 

χάλυι/Λ 662. 52. 

χάρις 659. 24. 

χαριτησων 662. 53• 

χίΐμών 659. 37• 

χβφ 659. 27 ; 662. 33• 

χλ€υάζ(ΐν 663. 12. 

χόλοί 659. 65- 
];^ooj 660. 4• 

χορηγεϊν 666. 93• 
χορηγία 666. 1 1 3• 
;(θρο'ί 659. 5ΐ• 
χρηναι 659. 49• 
χρησθαι 684. 19, 23. 
χρο'ΐΌί 659. 14; 664. ίο, 

χρυσ[ 660. 2 2. 
χρύσΐος 671. 1 6. 
χρυσότΓίττλοί 659. 2 1. 
χρωματικός 667. Ι. 
χώεσ^αι 670. 1 6. 



χωλ(5ί 670. 1 1 . 

χώρα ββ3. 2 5. 
X<upis βββ. I op. 

ψυχή 665. 115• 

ώ 661. 9, 13; 662. 46. 
ωδή 675. i6. 

ώκ/ωί 659. 26. 
ώκνάΚος 65Θ. 39* 
ώκνπονί 659. 5^. 

ωμότηί 664. Ι07. 

ώ$ 659. 5; ββ3. 36, 39. 40, 

47; 665. ι8. 
ώσίΓ^ρ 663. 3°• 
άστε 666. 167 ; 667. Ι3• 

a 25, 43, 56, 97> ι64, ιβγ, 
174, ι85, 212. 

ab 33• 

abire 26. 

accipere 49, 148, 165, ΐ75• 

accusatio 9• 

ad 16, no, 121. 

admittere 15. 

adversus 83, 151. 

Aebutius 38. 

Aemilia 143. 

Aemiliana via 31. 

Aemilianus 95, 120, i2^,and 
see Scipio. 

Aemilius, L, Aem. 67. M. 
Aem. 215. 

affinis 12 2. 

Africa 125. 

Africanus, P. Cornelius Sci- 
pio A. (the elder) 25, (the 
younger) 210, and see 

ager 75. 

alius 92. 

Ambracia 12. 

amicitia 165. 

Anio 188. 

annus 177. 

Antiochus 6, 213. 

Appius (=Hasdrubal ?) 132. 
Appius Claudius (a) 48, 
[b) 177. 

aqua 188. 

arma 102. 

Asellus 182. 

athleta 42. 

Attalus no. 

Audax 197. 

(δ) Latin (668). 

Aulus 76, 112, 193. 
aurum 15. 
auxiliari 90. 

Bacchanalia 40. 

Baebius, Cn. Baeb. 67. M. 

Baeb. 74. 
basilica 57. 
bellum 68, 89. 
benigne 90. 
Bithynia no. 
Boii 55. 
Bononia 7. 
Brutus 203, 216. 

caedere i, 126, 171, 208. 
Caepio, Cn. Caepio 170. 

Q. Servilius Caep. 176, 

182, 195. 
Caius 30, 76, 84, 191, 215. 
Campani 17. 
canere 62. 
capere 12, 127. 
Capitolium 189. 
captiva 14. 
caput 16, 112. 
career 204. 
carmen 105, 189. 
Carthaginienses 22, 83, 90. 
Carthago 132, 134. 
Cato 56, 114. 
censor 56. 
Censorinus 88. 
censura 8. 
centurio 15. 
certamen 42. 
Chaldaei 192. 
Charidemus 98. 

circa 51 (?), 169. 
circumscribere 39. 
clades 175. 
Claudius, Appius Claudius 

(a) 48, (3)177. M.Claud. 

Marcellus 58. Ti. Claud. 

Asellus 182. P. Claud. 

Pulcher 50. 
clavus (clava?) 196. 
Cnaeus 2, 66, 137, 170, 191. 
cogere 32, 73. 
comitium 208. 
commodum 206. 
competitor 9. 
compositum (1. propositum ?) 


conferre 47. 

coniurium. See connubium. 

connubium 17. 

consul passim. 


consultare 181. 

contra 189. 

cor 115. 

Corinlhius 168. 

Corinthus 135, 145. 

Cornelius, C. Corn. 84. Cn. 
Corn. 137. L.Corn. Scipio 
27, 45. P. Corn. Scipio 
see Scipio. 

Cotta 210. 

Crassus 59. 

creber 134. 

crimen 72. 

crudelissime 132. 

cruentus 18. 

cum (conjunction) 210. 

cum (preposition) 77, 186. 



d (=duo?) 51. 

damnare 28, 51, 86, 179. 

dare 3, 6, 17, 166. 

de 33, 179. 

decedere 119. 

Decimus 178, 200, 203, 216. 

Decius(?) 89. 

deditio 91. 

deducere 7. 

deformis 185. 

deprehendere 116. 

deserter 207. 

desiderare 53. 

deterrere (?) 184. 

devincere 164, 185. 

devovere 188. 

dextra 166. 

dicere 114. 

dies 25, 180. 

dimicare 125. 

Diodotus 213. 

diripere 138. 

distribuere 120, 169. 

Ditalco 197. 

domus 180. 

donum 165. 

duo 141, 177. 

edere 43. 

esse 5, 63, 122. 

et 18, 21, 37, 38, 82, 103, 

evincere 177. 
ex 20. 

exercilus 96, 126. 
exoriri 89. 
exspirare 207. 

Fabius, Q. Fabius 4. Q. Fa- 
bius Maximus 149, 171, 

facere 104, 186. 
Fecenia 37. 
ferre 116. 
fides 95. 
filius 100, loi, 120, 141, 

fingere 72. 
flamen 4. 
Flaminia via 30. 

Flamininus 52. 

Flaininius 24. 

flere 100. 

flumen 217. 

forlissime 187. 

forum 63. 

fugare 49, 172. 

Fulvius, Q. Fulv. 81. Fulv. 

Nobilior 43, 82. 
funebris 60. 

Gabinius 193. 
Galba 152. 
Gallia 52. 
Gallograecia 20. 
Gallograeci 13, 33. 
Gallus 44. 
gladiatorius 54. 

habere 115, 178. 

Hannibal 64. 

Hasdrubal 122. 

Hispala 37. 

Hispani 41, 77. 

Hispania i, 216. 

homo 51. 

Hostilius, A. Host. Mancinus 

112. C. Host. Mancinus 

hostis 1 86. 

idem 180. 

in 5. 34, 63, 71, 75, 91, 92, 
108, III, 116, 125, 126, 
174, 180, 187, 204, 208, 

incendium 128. 

indicium 40 (?). 

ingenuus 85. 

insidiae 187. 

intercedere 27. 

interesse 180. 

interfector 201. 

interpellare 183. 

invisus 155. 

Italia 44. 

iterum 3. 

iubere 91. 

iudicium. See indicium. 

iugulare 198. 

lunius Brutus 200, 203, 216. 

Lacedaemonii 18. 

Laelius 176. 

Latini 32. 

legatio 114. 

legatus III, 121, 135. 

Lentulus. See P. Cornelius 

liber 11, 66, 87, 173, 199. 
liberare 14, 97. 
liberi 118, 162. 
Licinius 203. P. Licin. Cras- 

sus 59. P. Licin. 3. L. 

Porcius Licin. 50. 
lictor 184. 
Ligures 30, 49, 77. 
Literninum 26. 
Livius 19, and see Villius. 
locus 92. 
Lucius 21,27,45, 52,67,75, 

78,88,113, 145,152,153. 

ludus 46, 60. 
lugere (?) 207. 
Lusitani 6, 83, 98, 136, 167, 

171, 187, 212. 

Macedonia 179. 
magistratus 79. 
magnitude 211. 
Mancinus 112, 215. 
Manilius, M'. Manil. 88, 103. 

L. Manil. Vulso 113. 
Manius 88. 
Manlius, Cn. Manl. 2. L. 

Manl. 21, M. Manl. 81. 

T. Manl. Torquatus 178. 
manus 55. 
Marcellus 44. M. Claudius 

Marcell. 58. 
Marcius Censorinus 88, 103. 
Marcus 58, 74, 81, 82, iii, 

114, 115, 150, 215. 
mare 71. 

Masinissa 121, 122. 
mater 38. 

maximus 3, 4. 120, 128. 
Maximus 149, 171, 185. 



Metellus, L. Metell. 167. Q. 
Metell. 127, i53(?), 160. 
millia (siglum) 51. 
minari 8. 
Minucius 21. 
Minurus 197. 
mittere 121. 
multa 205. 
Mummius 145, 168. 
munire 31. 
Myrtilus 21. 

ne 26, 177. 
nee 115. 
negare 202. 
Nobilior 82. 
nobilis 14. 
nomen 211. 
non 133, 180, 220. 
Numantini 174, 212. 

obicere 196. 

Oblivio 217. 

obsidere 133. 

occidere 16, i23(?), 164. 

Occius 186. 

occupare 102• 

omnis 91, 207. 

oppidum 169. 

Ortiagon 14. 

Pamphylia 13. 

pater 73. 

pati 15. 

pax 3, 6, 186. 

pecunia 34. 

pellere 94. 

pensare (?) 16• 

per 20, 30, 73, 98, 102, 107, 

120, 138, 194. 
perdomare 31. 
Pergameni (?) iii. 
persolvere 35. 
persuadere 45. 
pes 115. 

petere 8, 79, 156. 
Petillius, L. Petill. 75. Q. 

Petill. 25. 
Petronius 150. 

Philippus 10 1. Phil. Poenus 

Piso 191. 

planus. See primus, 
plebs 27, 78, 183, 204, 206. 
podagricus 112. 
Poenus 97. 
Pompeius 170, 174. 
pontifex 4. 
Popilius 191. 
populus 107, 205, 206. 
Porcia basilica 57. 
poscere. See pensare. 
post 46. 
Postumius, A. Post. 76. Sp. 

Post. 36. 
potestas 142. 
potiri 214. 
praeda 20. 
praetor 4, 135. 
prex 205. 
primum 43. 
primus 217. 
pro 206, 
producere 99. 
proelium 13, 18, 134. 
profectio 183. 
proficisci 5. 
proposiium 9 (?), 163. 
prospere 125. 
Publius 3, 50, 59, 74, 84, 

200, 219. 
Pulcher 50. 
pupillus 37. 
Punicus 89. 

-que 16, 165, 180, 214. 
qui 5, 22, 26, 35, 38, 100, 

104, 119, 155, 164. 
Quirinalis 5. 
Quintius 52. 
Quintus 4, 25, 81, 149, 160, 

170, 171, 186. 
quod 4, 53, 84, 122. 
quondam 113. 
quot 78. 

redire 93. 
referre 40. 

regnum 119. 

relinquere 119. 

remittere 165. 

res 216. 

respondere 114, 181. 

Rethogenes 161. 

reus 99. 

revocare 26. 

rex 6, no. 

Roma 33, 169. 

Romanus i, 93, 133, 135. 

Rutilius 38. 

sacrarium 127. 

sagulum 165. 

Sala?sus. See Sapiens. 

Salinator 19. 

Sapiens 176. 

Sardinia 5. 

Scantinius 115. 

Scipio, L. Cornelius Scipio 
27, 45. P. Corn. Scipio 
Africanus 25. P. Corn. 
Scip. Aemilianus 74, 94, 
120, 123, 138, 210. P. 
Corn. Scip. Nasica 200, 

Scordisci 175. 

scriba 75. 

se loi. 

senectus 118. 

Sergius 152. 

Servilius Caepio 176, 182, 

Sibylla 189. 
signum 168. 
Silanus 178. 
singuli 209. 

socius 107, and see occidere. 
spectaculum 54. 
Spurius 36. 
statua 168. 
stolidus 113. 
stuprare 85. 
siuprum 116. 
subigere 42, 136. 
subsellium 123. 
suffragium 194. 
Sullani 218. 



suus 53, 55, 179, 180, li 
Syria 157, 214. 

tabella 194. 
tabernaculum 61. 
tabula 168. 
tertius 89, 
Tiberius 182. 
Titus 178. 
Theoxena 70. 
Tiiessalia 126. 
tollere 41. 
Torquatus 178. 
transferre 35. 

transire 217. 

tribunus 27, 78, 183•, 204, 

Tryphon 213. 
tutor 38. 
Tyresius 164. 

ultimus 108, 118, 
urbs 192. 
Uticenses 89. 
uxor 140, 146. 

vastare 13, 83, 157, 212. 
vates 62. 

veneficium 51. 

venire (veneo) 209. 

venire (venio) 91. 

verna 193. 

vexare 167. 

Villius 78. 

vir 16. 

virga 208. 

Viriathus 172, 185, 198, 

virtus 96. 
vis 15. 
votivus 46. 
Vulso 113. 

Αρσινόη (Philadelphus?) 807. 
Ptolemy Alexander I. 

Πτολ. [<5 Koi 'AXe^avBpos debsj ΦιΚομητωρ και Ββρερίκη 802. om. Β(ρ(νίκη 824. 


Καίσαρ 711. 3, 6; 721. 4 et saep.; 731. 2, 4, 15; 742. 16; 743. 17, 44; 744. 
15; 826. 


Ύιβΐριο! Καίσαρ Σ(βαστό{ 746. 12. 

θίόί Κλαύδίοί 713. 15; 80S. 


Αντοκρ. Καΐσ. Λομιτιανος ^(βαστυς Τ(ρμανικΟ! 722. 2. 


Αυτοκρ, Νί'ρουαί Καΐσ. Σ€βαστ05 713. 4Ι> 44• 


Αυτοκρ. Κα'ισ. Tpaiavbs 'Adptavos Σ(β. 714. 28, ^2 ; 715. 27, 32," 728. 2; 729. 34j 3^> 

730. 32. 

'Abpiavos Καίσ. ό κύριος 707. 19, 33 > 714. I9j 24; 715. 8, 20 ; 730. 6. 

Antoninus Pius. 

Αυτοκρ. Καίσ. Τίτος Αιλιος ΆΒριανος ΆντωνΊνοι Σΐβ. Ένσφηί 723. Ι ; 724. 1 4 ; 728. 25 ; 
729. 45 ; 732. 6. om. Tiros 727. 29. 

Titos ΑιλίΟί 'Ahpiavos ΆντωνΙνος ΚαΙσ. δ κύριος 729. 39• 

Άντων'ινυς Καϊσ. ό κύριος 712. 1 3 5 724. 5; 728. 17, 4^ i 732. 3 ; 733. Ι ; 800. 


Marcus Aurelius and Verus. 

Ανρηλιοι ΆντωνΊνος και Ουηρος οΐ κύριοι 2φ. 734. Ι . 


AircKp. VLaW. Mip.os ΑύρίΧ.οϊ Κψμο8.ί Άντ^ΛοΓ Είσ.βίΓ Είτνχίί ΐ,β. 'Αρμ- Μ,8. Παρβ. 

'Τί,Τκ"ίΓΜ•;Γ• ™χ»'κο>ο3.. Wo,.:». ..S. >.. «,a. Π,.,., .op.. Γ,ρ.. 

Μί'γισΓΟί 725. 57• 

Pescennius Niger. 

Γάίοί Ώ(σκ€ννιος Ntytp ΊοΟστο? Σίβ. 719. 5. 28. Cf. 801. 

Septimius Severus and Caracalla. 

AiroKp. Καίσ. Aomio, ^.ητίμιο, 2.ονηρο, Έiσeβ)„ Π.ρτίναξ 2φ 'Αραβ. Άδκ.β,.. Παρθ. 
Μίγιστοί και Μτοκρ. Καίσ. Μάρκο: Αίρηλιο: Άντωι/Ινοϊ Ένσίβψ 2φ. 705. Ι, 54• 
Αυτοκρ. Σβονηρος και Άντωνίνος 705. Ι5> 65• 
οί κύριοι Σ€β. 735. ΙΟ. 
AiiTOKpUTopes 705. IQj 7°• 


Philippus Augustus ii et Philippus Caesar cos. 720. 6. 


AiroKp. Καισ. Τάιο, Μέσσιο: Κνιντος Tpaiavhs Ac/ctos Είσφ. Είτυχ. 2e,3. 658. ΐ8. 

(a) Months. 

Αύστροί {Ύύβι) 723. I. 

lulius 737. I. 

Καισάρηο! {Μ^ορη) 715. 33; 722. 3) 789 


Sfpavtios (Χοίακ) 808. 

Neparftof "Σΐβαστός {^ο'ιακ') 803. 
Σεβαστό? (θώό) 713. Ι5• 
Sextilis 737. 21. 
'Υ7Γίρ/3ίρ€ταίθ$ (Μβσορή) 722. 2. 

(3) Days 

i^tay6μ(va^ ήμίραι, e 715. 33» 37; $■ 722 

3, 43• 
Idus 737. 5 ^^ ^^^/• 

ΚαλάνΒαι 747. 2. 

Kalendae Sextiliae 737. 21. 

Nonae luliae 737. ι. 

Σφαστη (Caesarius, 6th intercalary day) 

722. 3. 




*λβάσκαντος 716. 5, 29. 

Ά/3ίΐϊ 728. 3. 

'kya&ivos father of Diodorus 713. 8; 723. 2. 

'Αθη{ ) 736. 3 7. 

^Aθηvόbωpoς, OioKepios Ά^, 800. 
hikiavos, Αντώνιος Αιλ. 708. 2, Ι5• 
'AXe^aubpos 718. 6. 

*Αλί|αι/δροί father of Leonides 713. 9. 
Άλίί 744. I, 16. 

Άμμωνας 736. 69. 

Ά/χ/ζώί/ιοί 734. 4 ; 791 ; 825. 

Αμμώνιος father of Achilleus 722. 11. 
'Αμμώνιος son of Apollonides 729. 3.^^, 38. 
Αμμώνιος (or Απολλώνιος) father of Didymus 

719. 2, 8, II. 
Άμόις father of Diogenes 728. 3, 36. 
Άμόις also called Papontos, son of Diodorus 

733. 3. 

Άνθίστιος 707. 12, 34. 

Άνθΐστιος Ώρήμος also Called Lollianus 718. 

2 ^2. 
•Ai/tL 736. 30, 36 ; 742. i ; 745. 3 ; 811 (?). 
'Avre/jMs son of Lucretius 817. 
Άντωνία 736. 54. 
ΆιτώΐΊΟί Αιλιανός 708. 2, 1 5• 

Άπύς son of Apeis 732. 3. 

Άπίων, Τάιος Μάρκιος Άπ. also Called Diogenes 

727. 6, 10, 27. 
Άπίων son of Horion 728. 5, 14, 22, 36. 

Άπολινάριος, Τάιος Μάρκιος Άπ. also called 

Julianus 727. 7, 10, 27. 

Απολλωΐ'άρίοΐ' 744. 2. 

Άπολλωί'άρίοΐ', Oυaλfpίa ΆτΓ. also Called Nica- 

rete 727. 17. 
Άπολλωνίδης father of Ammonius 729. 35. 
'Απολλώνιος 714. 8 ; 718. 8, 32 ; 739. i ; 791. 
ΆτΓολλώι/ιοί son of ApoUonius 726. 5. 

ΆτΓολλώΐΊΟί βιβλιοφνλαξ 713. 2. 

ΆτΓολλώϊΊΟΓ (or Αμμώνιος) father of Didymus 

719. 2, 8, II. 
'Απολλώνιος son of Diogenes 726. 5. 
'Απολλώνιος father of Dionysius 724. 2. 
'Απολλώνιος son of Dorion 716-4, 28. 
'Απολλώνιος Libyan 743. 37. 
'Απολλώνιος scribe of the city 714. 6. 
'Απολλώνιος father of Valerius 730. 2, 35. 

Άπολλωνοΰς 722. 15, 28, 39. 

ΆτΓολλωΓ son of Ophelas 837. 

Άπολλώς daughter of Paesis 837. 

"Αρης planet 804. 

Άρθώνις father of Thonis also called Morous 

725. 63. 
Άριστίων 786. 

"Αρπαλος son of Hermon 808. 
'Apfffis 728. 2, 29. 
Άρτ€/χάί 745. 2. 

Άρτ€μίδωρος 715. 24. 
'Αρχέλαος 121. ΙΟ. 
Άσίης 717. 6. 
Άσκληπιάδης 194^; 806. 

Άσκληπιά^ης also Called Sarapion, gym- 

nasiarch 716. i. 
Άσκληπιάδης father of Sarapion 723. 4. 
Ανρηλία Άμμωνάριον 720. 8. Aurclia Ammo- 

narion 720. 2. 
Ανρηλία Ααίς daughter of AureliusL thion 

658. 15. 
Αυρήλιος Αιόσκορος son of Aurelius L thion 

658. 13. 
Αΰρηλιυς A θίων son of Theodorus 658. 3. 

Αυρήλιος Ώληυτήμμων 720. 9, 1 3. Aurelius 

Plutammon 720. 4. 
Αυρήλιος Ώριων ex-archidicastes 705. 7, 18, 58, 

[.]ανσις SOU of Sipos 708. 4. 
Avidus, Gradius Av. 735. 16. 
'Αχίλλάϊ son of Thonis 732. 3. 
Ά;^ιλλ€ΐ;ί son of Ammoniu's 722. 27, 35. 
Άχιλλ(ΰς also Called Casius, strategus 719. i. 

ΆχορΊνις 807. 
'Αφροδίσιας 744. 1 1 . 

Barichius 735. 19. 

Βάσσοί, Γίλλιοϊ Β. epistrategus 726. 19. 

Beleus 735. 12, 13. 

Bepovs 736. 71 ; 744. 2. 

Βί^σΰϊ 832. 

Βίθυς father of Papontos 719. 10. 

Chu[ 735. 29. 

Claudius Valerius Firmus praefect 720. i. 
Claudius Sabinus 735. 14. 
Comar[inus (?) father of Mariius 735. 3. 
Cumesius (.?) 735. 27. 



Γίίιορ Md'pActos Άπίων also called Diogenes 

727. 6, 9, 27. 
ratos Μάρκίος Άπολινάριος also Called Julianus 

727. 6, 9, 27. 

rotof 'Ροίιστιος 745. II. 

ΓάίΟί Έίππιος 'ΡοΟφοί 721. I ; 835. 

Ta\faros 715. 5. 

Γαλί'στοί son of Polemon 715. 2. 

TeXXios Βάσσος epistrategus 726. 19. 

re>fXXoi 724. 2 ; 736. 12. 

Τη 722. 6. 

Topyias father of Polemon 715. 3, 12, 17. 

Topyias son of Polemon 715. 2, 34. 

Gradius Avidus 735. 16. 

Ααμαρίων 706. ΙΟ, II. 

Aa/iSs 743. 24, 40. 

Δ,άμων 730. 9. 

Αημητρία 707. 8 ί/ ίβζ^. 

Δημήτριο: 825. 

Δημήτριος βιβλιοφνλαξ 713. 2, 43• 

Δημήτριος deputy archidicastes, son of Hera- 
clides 727. 4. 

Δημητρονς 723. 3• 

Δίδυμοί 784; 786; 791. 

Δίδυμος son of Ammonius or Apollonius 719. 

2, 8, II. 

Δί8νμος son of Charit . . . 826. 
Δίδυμος son of Diogenes (?) 837. 

Διογας 719. 17- 

Διογένης 726. 7 ; 801; 838. 

Διογίρης son of Amois 728. 3, 23, 29, 36. 
Διογένης father of Apollonius 726. 6. 

Διογίνης βιβλιοφύλαξ 713. 3. 

Διογένης, Τάιος Μάρκιος ^ Απίων also called Diog. 

727. 7, ΙΟ, 27. 
Διογίνης father of Didymus 837. 

Διογΐνης πράκτωρ 733. 2. 

Διογένης son of Sarapion 740. 38. 

Διογένης son of Theon also called Dionysius 

716. 17, 30. 
Διόδωρος father of Amois also called Papontos 

733. 3. 
Διόδωρος father of Agathinus 713. 5, 7 ; 

723. 2. 
Διόδωρος son of Diodorus 713. 4, 21. 
Διονυσίας daughter of Galestus 715. 5. 

Διονύσιος 718. 5, 12, I7; 790. 

Διθέσιο? son of Apollonius 724. 4. 
Διονύσιος βιβλιοφΰλαξ 714. 3, 4. 

Διονύσιος father of Dionysius 728. 33. 
Διονύσιος son of Dionysius 728. 33. 
Διονύσιος son of Phanias 789. 
Διονύσιος also called Theon 716. 8, 31. 
Διονύσιος son of Theon also called Dionysius 

716. 9, 13. 
Διόσκορος 810. 
Διόσκορος, Αυρήλιος Δ. SOU of AureliuS 

L thion 658, 13. 

Δωράς father of Panechotes 716. 3. 
Δωρίων son of Hcras 716. 4, 28. 

Έίρηνίων 712. 1 7• 
'Ελένη 719. 2, II. 

Ελένη daughter of Gorgias 715. 17. 

"Ελΐνος 743. 2 2. 
Έπαφρόδ(ΐτος 743. 2 ζ. 
Έράσιππος 717. 6. 
"Ερμιππος 811. 

Έρμόδωρος also Called Philonicus, basilico- 

grammateus 714. 2. 
Έρμόφιλος 746. 3. 
"Ερμωκ father of Harpalus 808. 
Etiopius(?) 735. 29. 
Ευαγγέλιος also called Sarapion, strategus 

Εύγενέτωρ 741. I. 

Ευδαιμονίς daughter of Theon also called 

Dionysius 716. 9, 12. 
Ευτέρπη also called Tanechotarion, daughter 

of Diogenes 726. 7. 

Ευτνχίδης 839. 
Ενφρων 794. 

Firmus, Claudius Valerius F. praefect 720. i. 

Zabdius 735. 13. 
Zebidius 735. 23. 
Zeus 722. 6. 
Z/x . . . 736. 4. 

Ζώίλοί 715. 2 2. 

ζώίλοί father of Ptolemaeus 729. 37. 

Ηλιόδωρος father of Heliodorus 732. i. 
Ήλιόδωρης son of Heliodorus 732. i e/ saep. 
Ήλίοί 722. 6. 
Ήρα goddess 731. 6. 

Ήραδιωι/ 725. I. 
'-ΆρακΚ{ 800. 



Ήρακλάς son of Sarapion also called Leon 

725. 3 ef saep. 
Ήρακλάί son of Tryphon 722. 21. 

Ήρακλίία 740. 42. 

Ήρακλ(ί8ης 70β. 2, lo; 740. 42, 43; 795; 

Ήρακλύ^ης basilicogrammateus 746. ι, 13. 
Ήρακλ(ίδη! ex-exegetes, father of Demetrius 

727. 4• 
Ήρακλίίδηί son of Ηοποη 719. i8. 
Ηρακλείδη! father of Samus 716. 6, 30. 
'Hpa/cXei'Si/f father of Sarapion also called Leon 

725. 3. 
Ηρακλείδης father of Theon 723. 2. 
Ήρακληί father of Xenon 785. 
'Upas 740. 35. 

'Upas βιβλιοφύλαξ 715. I, 35- 

'Upas father of Dorion 716. 5. 
Ηρώδη! father of Sarapion 730. i. 
"Ηρών 736. 99; 740. i7(?). 

θαησα 716. 5; 736. 68. 

θαήσις daughter of Theon also called Diony- 

sius 716. 10, 14. 
θαίς daughter of Diodorus 713. 22. 
θανωχις son of . . . etis and father of Pather- 

mouthis 712. 4. 
θΐόδοτοί, Οναλίριος θ. also Called Polion 727. 

Θεόδωρο! 736. 33, 76. 
Θεόδωρος father of Aurelius L thion 668.4. 

θεόξενος 836. 

Θεόφιλος politarch 745. 4. 
θέων 740. 35 (.?) ; 746. ι ; 799. 
θέων also called Dionysius 716. 8, 31. 
θε'ων son of Heraclides 723. 2. 

θοηρις god 806. 

θοτσνταΊο! son of Horus 797. 
θοώνις father of Achillas 732. 3. 

θρασύμαχος 713. 2 0. 
θωνί! 725. 7. 

θωνί! also called Morous, son of Hanhonis 
725. 63. 

lebael 735. i8. 

lerraeus son of Macchana 735. 15. 

Ίησοϋς 816. 

ΊλαρΙων 744. I, l6. 

Ιουλιανό?, Γάιος Μάρκιος Άπολινάριος also Called 

J. 727. 7, 10, 28. 

Ί7Γ7Γοδ( ) 715. 35. 

ι .ρ ,μ. . archidicastes, son of Isidorus 727. i . 

Ίσας 736. 32; 739. I. 

Ίσίδώρα daughter of Calas 713. lo. 

Ίσίδωρο! 816. 

Ίσίδωρο! ex-exegetes, father of I . r . m . . 

727. I. 
Ισίδωρος father of Valerius 735. 4. 
Ίσχνρίων son of Heradion 725. i, 15, 46. 
lulia Titia lex 720. 5, 14. 
lulius 735. 28. 

KatKiKios 736. 55. 

Κάλαί 713. ΙΟ. 

Κάσιος, Άχιλλεΰς also Called C. 719. I. 

Κεφάλα! 806. 

Κλαρο! 734. 2. 

Κλανδία Ώτολεμά 810. 

Κλαύδιος, TiVor Κ. Ξενοφών epistrategUS 718. Ι. 

Κλέων 734. 4• 

Κόραξο! 736. 4, ΙΟ. 

Κννο! son of Ptolemaeus 814. 
ΚωμαρΊνο! father of Victor imperial steward 
735. 6. 

Ααίς, Αυρηλία Λ. daughter of Aurelius 

L thion 658. 15. 

ΛαίτοΓ praefect 705. 40. 

Ααυδίκη 736. 95• 

Αεοντάς son of Pekuris 732. i ei saep. 

Αεπτίνη! son of . . monax 831. 

Αεων, Σαραπίων also Called L., son of Hera- 

clides 725. 3, 61. 
Αεωνίδη! son of Alexander 713. 5, 9. 
Αεωνίδη! son of Diodorus 713. 4. 
Λ βίων, Αυρηλιο! Λ. son of Theodorus 

658. 3. 
Αίβιο! 728. I, 28. 
Αοκρητιο! father of Anteros 817. 

Αοκρίων 812. 

Αολλιανό!, Άνθεστιος Ώρείμος also Called L. 

718. 2, 32. 

Αοι•κιος 812. 

Αονκίο! father of Ptollas 729. 35. 
Αοΐιπος praefect 706. 5. 

Αυσίμαχο! 822. 

Macchana father of lerraeus 735. 15. 
Malichus son of Sa[ 735. 24. 
Malichus father of Themes 735. 17• 



Μαλωχώί Oplio 735. 5. 

Μαμΐρτΐΐνοί, ΠίτρώΐΊΟί Μ. praefect 726. 1 7. 
Μάρκίοί, Vinos Μ. Άπίων also Called Diogenes 

726. 6, 9, 27. 

MiipKtos, Γάιοί Μ. Άπολίνάριος also Called 

Julianus 727. 6, 9, 27. 
Marrius son of Comarinus (?) 735. 3. 
Mi\as father of Miusis 719. 19. 
Mfj/OTTTos 715. 24. 
Μιΰσΐί son of Melas 719. 19. 
Μοι/χίσ . χ{ ) father of Pathotes 740. 40. 
Μονθί! father of Papontos 719. 18. 
Μωροΰί• also called Thonis, son of Harthonis 

725. 63. 
. . μώναξ father of Leptines 831. 

NiOTTToXf/iof father of ... on 712. 9. 

Nex^eis 739. 3. 

ΐ^ικαρίτη, OvaXepia 'Λττολλωι/άριον also Called N. 

727. 18. 

t^ovprjv^os 715. 22. 

Ξ(νοφων, Titos Κλαυδίο? 3. epistrategUS 718 I. 

Ξίνων 810. 

Sfvav son of Heracles 785. 

Oveovo0is 815. 

OvaXfpia Άπολλωνάριον also called Nicarcte 
727. 16. 

OioKepios Αθηνόδωρος 800. 

OvaXfptos son of ApoUonius 730. 2, 34. 
OuaXepiof θ€Οδοτοί also Called Polion 727. 16. 
Οίίκτωρ imperial steward, son of Comarinus 

735. 5. 
OmroKios archidicastes 719. 3, 7. 

Pacebius 735. 30. 

Παησίί 837. 

Ώαθΐρμονβις son of Thanochis 712. 6, 12. 

Παθώτης 728. I, 27. 

Πα^ώτί^ί son of Moimes . ch . . . 740. 40. 
Ώανάρης also called Panechotes, ex-cosmetes 

724. I. 
Ώανγορσαοΰις father of . . . nychus 708. 17. 
Ιίανΐσι . . . 722. 2 2. 
Ώανίχώτης son of Doras 716. 3, 27. 
Ώανΐχώτηε also Called Panares, ex-cosmetes 

724. I. 
Παντωνυμίε 658. 5• 
Uaovs son of Bithys 719. 15. 

Ώαποντωε also Called Amois, son of Diodorus 

733. 3. 
Παποιτώί son of Bithys 719. 10, 27, 34. 
Παποντώΐ son of Mouthis 719. 1 8. 

1Iaσaλvμιs 740. 20. 

Π5σίί 736. 85 (?). 

Uavaipis son of Petsiris 808. 

TieKvpis father of Leontas 732. i, 9. 

UeWis 811. 

UfTerjais 722. 32. 

Πίτσΐρίί father of Pausiris 808. 
Πίτρώηοί Maμfpτflvos praefect 726. 17. 

Πλούταρχος 707. 14• 

Πό(9οΓ 742. 2. 

Πολί'μωι/ 719. 6. 

Ώολψων son of Gorgias 715. 4, n. 
Πολέμων son of Tryphon 721. 2, 9. 
Ποταμών son of Thanochis 712. 4 ei saep. 
Π /jei/xof, 'Avuearcos Π. also called Lollianus 

718. 2, 32. 
Πρί /Lta 736. 17. 
Psenosirius 735. 25. 

Πτολβρΰ, Κλαυδία Πγ. 810. 
Πτολεμαίος 790. 

Πτολ^μαίοΓ father of Kunos 814. 

Πτολεμαως StrategUS 803. 
Πτολεμαίος SOn of ZoiluS 729. 37. 

Πτολλάί son of Lucius 729. 35. 

Πωλίων, Ούαλεριος θΐόδοτος also called P. 727. 


Romanus 735. 26. 

'Ρούστιος, Γάιος 'P. 745. II. 

'Ρονφος, Γάίος Σίππιοε 'Ρ. 721. Ι ; 835. 

Sabinus, Claudius S. 735. 14• 

Sadus 735. 2, 20. 

Salmes 725. 32. 

Σάμος son of Heraclides 716. 6, 30. 

Σαραενς daughter of Leonides 713. 5, 8. 

Σαραπάς son of Ammonius 722. 8, 21, 37. 

ΣαραπΙων 707. 1 3 ," 716. 1 5 ; 729. 5 e/ saep.; 

806; 825. 
Σαμαπίων also Called Asclcpiades, gymnasiarch 

716. I. 
Σαραπίων father of Diogenes 740. 38. 
Σαραπίων also Called Euangelius, strategus 

Σαραπίων son of Heraclides 723. 4. 



Σηραπίων son of Herodes 730. i. 
Σαραπϊων also Called Leon, son of Heraclides 
725. 3, 6i. 

Σαραποΰς 722. 1 1 ; 795. 

Σΐκονντάς 736. 50. 

2(κοΰντος 736. 8 1. 

2em(9of 799. 

Σεππιο!, Taios Σ. 'Ρονφο! 721. I ; 835. 

Σιμάριστος 802. 

Σίμιλις, Σονλπίκιος Σ, praefect (?) 712. 2 2. 

Σινθίΰς 716. 9• 

Σιντότις (or -τον) 794. 

Σίττώί father of : .jausis 708. 4• 

ΣουλτΓί'ίΟίΟϊ Σίμιλις praefcCt (?) 712. 2 2. 
Στράτο: 736. 97• 
Σαγγινάρις 831. 
Σωγ€νηί 829. 

Τααρττα^σίί 736. 70• 

Ταΐ'6;^ωτά/)ίον also Called Euterpe, daughter of 

Diogenes 726. 6. 
Ίαοννωφρις daughter of Panesi . . . 722. 22. 
Taois 716. 4. 

ΤατΓοι^τώί 715. 12, 1 8; 733. 5. 
ΤατΓτολλοΰί daughter of Caecilius 736. 55. 

Tavpeivos 799. 
Ίαΐ,ρις 716. II. 
Τε^^ωσοΰϊ 809. 
Teas 832. 

Themes 735. 21. 

Themes son of IMalichus 735. 17. 

Titia, lex lulia et Tiiia 720. 5, 14. 

TtVoi Κλαύδιο? Ξ(νοφων epistrategus 718. I. 

Ύρνφάς 736. 56. 

Τρύφων father of Heraclas 722. 21. 

Ύρνφων father of Polemon 721. 2. 

Truphon 735. 27. 

Ta-eei daughter of Theon 723. 2. 

Τσενπαχοΰς 719. ΙΟ. 
Ύύχη 736. 1 8. 

Valerius, Claudius V. Firmus praefect 720. i. 
Valerius son of Isidorus 735. 4. 

ΦανΙας father of Dionysius 789. 

Φαΰστος 742. I, 1 7. 

Φήλιξ praefect 800. 
Φιλΐΐνος 707. 12, 1 8, 34. 
Φιλόνΐίκος also called Hermodorus, basilico- 
grammateus 714. i. 

Φιλουτάριον 739. 20. 

Φνά 736. 14. 

Φωσφόρος 792. 

Χαιράμμων 724. 3• 
Χαψήμων 723. ζ. 
Χαρίξ€ΐνο9 728. 6. 

ΧαρίΓ . ( ) father of Didymus 826. 

Ψάμμις agoranomus 722. 5• 
Ψ€ναμοννις 695. introd. 

Ώριγίνης βιβλιοφνλαξ 715. Ι. 

Ώρίων father of Apion 728. 5, 3^• 

Ώριων father of Heraclides 719. 19. 

Ώριων son of Panechotes 716. 3, 27. 

ΏροΓ 719. 17. 

^Ωρος father of Thotsutaius 797. 

Ώφ(λαί father of Apollos 837. 

Ώφ(λά5 father of Ophelas 727. 8. 

Ώφ(λας son of Ophelas 727. 8, 12, 22, 26. 

(a) Countries, Nomes, Toparchies, Cities. 

Aegyptus 720. i. 
ΆθρίβΙτηί 712. I, 8, 
Αιγύπτ40( 706. I, 7. 
Α'ιγνπτο! 727. II. 

'AXe^ai/Speta 709. 9 
799. Ά\(ξανδρ€ων 
ή mXis 727. 2. 

'ApTivoe'is 705. 50 (?). 

743. 24; 744. 3, 5; 

πολίϊ 705, 20, 68. 



'Αραβία 709. 5. 
Άρσινοίτης 709. 7• 
Αττικός 705. 46• 
[Αυ]1α 709. 6. 

ΑιοτΓολίτης 708. 2, 15. 

Έλλι^νικόί 784. 
Επτά ΐΌ/χοί 709. 7• 

Ηλίου πόλΐΓ 719. 2, 9, 12. 
ΉρακλίοτΓολίτί;? 715. ΐ. 

θι^βαΐί 708. 2,15; 709. 7 ; 722. 4 ; 
726. 4 ; 831. 

Ιουδαίοι 705. 33 ; 707. introd. 

Καβασίτη! ρ. 263. 
Κηνωπίκός 738. 2. 
κάτω χύ>ρα 709. 8. 
ΚυΐΌπολιτι^Γ 74β. Ι3• 
Κύνον (for Κυνώι^?) 739. 2. 

Αιβικο! 743. 37• 

Μακίδώΐ' των Σωγγίνάριος π(ζων 831. 
Μ//χφίί 709. 6 ; 825. 
ΜίμφΙτη! 825. 

723. Ι ; 

Μίττ^λίτ/;? ρ. 263. 

"Ο/χβοι 834. 

Ό^υρυγχΐται 705. g, 60. 

Ό^υρυγχ/τ?;? (ι/ο/χόϊ) 705. όρ ; 707. 151 710• 

2; 719.4, II ; 721.3; 727. 13; 746.13; 

Όξυρυγχιτων πόλΐϊ 718. 4 ; 724. Ι. 
'0ξνρνγχωι> πόλις 707. 13 ; 713. 6, 13; 716. 

7; 722. 4, 12; 723. ι; 725. 2; 726. 

3, 8 ; 727. g ; 728. 5 ; 730. 2 ; 732. ι ; 

789; 808; 831; 836. 

Ό^υρυγχοί (?) 745. 6. 

Πΐρσης TTJs επιγονψ 730. 4 ; 836. 
Ώηλούσιον 709. 4• 
Πϊ^λουσιώται 705. 37• 
Τίτολΐμαίς 839. 

'Ρωμαωι 705. 31 ί Ρ• ^63- 

Ί,ΐθροίτψ 709. 5• 

Ται/ίτϊ7ί 709. 5• 
τοπαρχία, Άνω 721. 9• 

θμοισιφώ 721. II ; 808. 

/neVij 734. 3• 

Νορασίίτ;;$ (not Oxyih.) 712. 20. 

χό>ρα, η κάτω χ. 709. 8. 

[ί?) Villages, ^ποίκια, roVot. 

Εύίργετ[ΐί 814. 

ΉρακΧίί^ου ιποίκιον 838. 

θβλβώ 814. 

θίω[ 740. 35• 

θ . θωθις 794. 

θώλ(9ίΓ 695. introd.; 740. 36• 

Θώσ/3ΐ5 721. 9 ; 728. 2, 4, 6. 

Ίβίων Ώαχνοϋβίς (Heracleop.) 715. 21. 

"Ισιον Ά . . . 732. 2. 

"Ισιον Ύρΰφωνοί 719. ΙΟ, 14• 

Κ(ρκ(μοννΐ5 746. 7 ; 837. 
Κβσμοίχΐϊ 740. 4° ; 808. 
Κυνου ( = Κυΐ'ών?) 739. 2. 

Μαγδώλα 740. 43• 

Μίρμίρθ{α?) 740. 1 6; 823. 

ΜοΰχίΓ 784. 

Μωνθμΐρΐχ) (not Oxyrh.) 712. 20. 

Νίκλτ; 742. 1 7• 
Nejtxepa 797. 
NeVXa 713. 24, 31• 

Ό^υρυγχοΐί (Dat.? = O^. tto'Xis) 745. 6. 

Παγκΰλΐί 732. 5• 

Παλώσΐί 808. 

Παώμΐϊ 740. 24. 

Ueevvco 713. 26. 

Π€λα 740. 20, 21, 37> 38; 835. 

neVi/r; Τακολ( ) τότϊοι 734. 3• 




'S.eviKtKti) 740. 26, 
2ei/£77Ta 730. 3, 39. 
'S.ewis 718. 13. 
Σ(νοκ(ύμ[ 740. 37, 38. 
Σψΰφις 707. 2o; 740. ιί 
Σΐφώ 803. 
Swapu 810. 

τακο\{ ) 734 3, 5. 

Ύακορα 743. 29. 
Ταλαώ 695. introd. 

Ύαμανις (Fayum) ρ, 263. 
Ύίπουΐί 721. g. 

Ύηις 808. 

ΎοβμΙσΐ! (Heracleop.) 715. 6, 13, 14• 
Ύρίφωνοί'Ίσιον 719. ΙΟ, Ι4• 

*eXe/iax( ) (Heracleop.) 715. 24. 

Δά/χωΐΌί 730. 9• 

Έϋφρονοί άΚα 794. 

Ζωίλου καΐ ΐ^ουμηνίου 715. 2 2. 

θρασυμά;^ου παραμίνη 713. 20. 

(ί) κλήροι. 

ΜεΐΊ'ττπου και Άρτίμίδωρου 715. 2 4• 
SfVCuvos 810. 
Χαριξ(ίνου 728. 6. 

Ίττπίων ΏαρΐμβοΧψ 78β. 

(ί/) αμφοδα. 

Νότου Λρόμου 78β. 
Νότου Κρηπι8ος 714. 1 1 . 

(^) Buildings, &c. 

'ASpiawj /3t^Xto%jj 719. 35• I Saparrtfloi/ 73Θ. 25; 832; 835. 

(/) Deme and Tribe. 

Σο>σ(ΚΟ(τμ(θί ό και Ηλι[ (?) 712. g. 

Γή 722. 6. 
Ζβύί 722. 6. 
Ήλίοί 722. 6. 

(α) Gods. 

Ήρα 731. 6, 

^fof β58. 8 ; 715. 28. Cf. Index ii. 
θοηρίΐ 80β. 



apxiepaTfvaas 718. 3. 

(δ) Priests. 

lepfvs θοηριο! 808. Up. και άρχώικαστης 719. 

3 ; 727. 2. 

ίστρα "Upas 731. 6. 
Θυσία 658. 2. 
tfpa SC. y^ 721. 7. 

(<:) Miscellaneous. 

iepaTiKo\ τόποι 707. introd. 

Upov (' offering') 658. i, 12 ; 784. 

iepov (' temple ') 785. 

"laua 731. 5. 


άγορανόμος 722. 4. 

αΐτητης 788. 

αριθμός, πρώτων αριθμών Ίππ(νί 735. 8. 

άρχώικαστης, Ί . . . Ισιδώρου tepevi και άρ;^ιδ. 
(α. D. 154)727. 2. ΟίιιτάλιΟΓ tep. και αρχιδ. 
(α. D. 193) 719. 3) 7• Δημήτριο: Ήρακλίί8ου 
δύπων τα κατά την apxibiKaaTeiav (α. D. 1 54) 

727. 4• 

βασιλικός Ύραμματ€νς, 'Ή.ρακ\(ί8ης (a.D. 1 6) 746. 
Ι, Ι3• Φι\όvflκoς 6 κα\ Έρμό^ωρος (a.D. 1 22) 

714. Ι. 

βιβλιοφύλαξ 712. Ι ; 713. 3 ; 714. 5 ; 715. ι. 
βοηθός 734. 4• 

γ€γνμνασιαρχηκά>ς 715. Ι, 35• 

γραμματεύς 709. 13 ', 715. 35 > ^35. βασιλικός 

yp. See βασιλικοΓ. γρ. καταΧο-γΐΐου 719. 6. 

γρ. πόλεοΰΓ 714. 7• 
γυμνασίαρχος 716. Ι. 

δ€κάδαρ;^οί 747. Ι. 

(ζηγητΐίσας 714. 6. 

εξηγητής (of Alexandria) 727. ι, 5• 

επικριτής 714. 5) 3^' 
(πιστατεία φνλακιτων 803. 
επιστάτης των ιππάρχων 790. 
επιστράτηγος, Γίλλιοί Βάσσοί (a.D. 135) 726. 
18. Ξενοφών {α.Ό. 180-92) 718. Ι. 

επιτηρητής ξενικών πρακτορείας 712. Ι, 8. 
εφο8ος 710. 4• 

ήγεμονενσας, Φηλιξ (c. A.D. 1 53) 800. 

ήγεμών, Αοΰπος (c. 1 1 5) 706. 5• Πίτρώνιοί 
Μαμερτεΐνος (a.D. 135) 726. 17• Σονλπίκιος 
Σίμιλις 712. 2 2. Λαίτοί (a.D. 2ΟΟ-2) 705. 

39• Claudius Valerius Firmus (a. d. 247) 
720. I. 

ιερών, οί €7Γΐ τών ιερών και θυσιών 668. Ι. 

ιττπαρχος 790. 

ίππεύς πρώτων αριθμών 735. 8. 

κεκοσμητενκώς 724. Ι. 

κριτής 726. 2 Ο. 

κωμογραμματεύς 718. 13» 20, 20. 

λαογράφος 786. 

μαχαιροφόρος 839. 

οικονόμος ονικάριος 735. 6. 

ότΓτίων 735. 5• 

ονικάριος, οικονόμος ονικ. 736. 6. 

pedes 735. 12. 

πί^όί, οι Σωγγίϊ/άριορ πί^οί 831. 
ττολιτάρχι^ί 745. 4• 
jrpay/iOTiVTijf 825. 

υ i 


ττρακτορΐΐα ξΐνικων 712. 1,8; 825. 
πράκτωρ άργυρικών 733. 2 ; 734. 3• 

σιτολόγοί 708. ΙΟ, 21 ; 740. 24, 26; 798; 

στραττ^γοί 708. 2, ι8; 717. 7> n j 718. 24. 

(Of Alexandria) Ί . . . . Ισιδώρου Ύΐνόμ€ΐΌί 
στρ. (a.D. 154) 727. 2. Αυρήλιος Ώριων 
γΐνόμ. στρ. (a.D. 20Ο-2) 705. 18, 67. (Of 

Oxyrhynchus) nroXe^atos (late ist cent. 

B. C.) 803. Άχίλλΐύί 6 Koi Κάσιος (a.D. 1 93) 

719. I, 4. 

τοπογραμματεύς 833. 

υπηρέτης 712. 1 7• 

φύλακίτης 803. 
φύλαξ 803. 

χΐφιστης 734. 2. 
χιλίαρχυς 708. Ι3• 
χρηματιστής 719. 7 > 727. 3• 

ωρσγράφος 710. 3• 

(α) Weights and Measures. 

&καινα 669. 29, 41. 
αμμα 669. 29. 

apovpa 713. 24 et saep.\ 715. 26 ; 718. 8 ^/ 
ja^;5.; 721. 10, 11, 14; 728. 7, 8, 30; 
729. 33 ; 730. 8, 39 ; 740. \\ et saep. 

άρτάβη 708. 4, II, 17, ip ; 718. 15; 735. 
9 ; 736. 8 ei saep. ; 788 ; 789 ; 836. 

βήμα 669. 28, 37. 

δάκτυλο? 669. 14, 1 7, 26, 43. 
δΐσμη 742. 4, 13- 
δίανλον 669. 30. 

ΐκατοστη 708. 8, g, 20. 

κάλαμος 669. 2 8, 4Ι• 

Kfpapiov 729. 36 ; 745. I ; 784. 

κοτύλη 784. 

λι;^άί 669. 2 7, 31 • 

μ£τροι/ 669. 26; 707. 26, 28, 30; 717. ι, 2 ; 

729. 27. μ• άγορανομικόν 836. ρ. δημόσιον 
740. ΐ8, 20. μ. ίμβ{ολικόν?) 740. ι8. 
/χ. σίτολογικόί^ 740. 17• μ- Τΐτραχοίνικον 
άγορανομικόν 836. μ. χαΧκοΰν 717. 8. 

fitTitoj' 669. 30• 

ναυβιον 669. II, 24. 

ξνλον 669. II, 20, 2 1, 28. ξ. βασΐΚικόν 669. 
II, Ι9• ξ• δημόσιον 669. 38. 

όγδοοι/ 669. Ι, 2. 
οργνιά 6Θ9. 28, 39• 

παλαιστι^ί 669. 1 3, 1 6, 2 7, 3 1) 34• 

πηχνς 669. 2 f/ Saep. ττ. δημόσιος 669. 34• 
π. εμβαδικός 669. 6, ΙΟ. π. {υθυμ€τρικός 
669. 5• ϊΓ. λινοϋφίκός 669. 33• ""• Ν<»λο- 
μΐτρικός 669. 35• ""• οίκοπβδικοί 669. 9• 
7Γ. στΐρεός 669. 7• "■• ΤίκτοΐΊκόϊ 669. 35* 

πλίθρον 669. 29. 

πούϊ 669. 2 7, 32• 

ηνγων 669. 27, 34• 

σπιθαμή 669. 27, 3^• 
στάδιον 669. 29• 
σχοινίον 669. Ι, 3, 1 8. 

Τίτάρτη 795. 

χοίζ/ι^ 740. ι8 et saep.; 789. 
χοίί 736. 15; 739. ιι; 819. 



{b) Coins. 

αργύρων 706. 3; 712. 6, 15; 724. 6 ; 728. 
9 ei saep.; 729. 6, 13, 20, 40; 730. 12, 
37 ; 731. 8, 9, 10, 12 ; 784; 788 ; 791 ; 

808. αργ. ΐττίσημον 722. 1 9. αργ. 2f- 
βαστοΰ νομίσματοί 719. 21 ; 722. 25• 

as 737. 2 ^/ ίαί/>. 

δραχμή 707. 8 ei saep.; 712. 6, 14, 15, 21; 
719. 21, 31 ; 722. 19, 25 ; 724. 6 et saep.; 
725. 22 et saep.\ 728. 9 et saep.; 729. 6 
i/ ίβ^/>, ; 730. 12, 14, 37; 731. 8, g, 11, 
12; 732. 5 et saep.; 733. 4, 6; 736. 2 
etsaep. ; 739. 2 et saep. ; 742. 14 ; 745. i ; 
784; 788; 791-2; 799; 803; 808; 
817; 819. 

δραχμιαΐος τόκος 712. 14 ; 728. 20. 

ημιωβίλίον 733. 4, 6; 736. 1 2 et saep.; 739. 
8, II. 

/HI'S 728. 21. 

οβοΚιαΙος 729. ΙΟ. 

ο/3ολ(5ϊ 731. 8, II, 13 ; 736. ζ, etsaep.; 739. 

7 ^/ ίβι?/». 

ΊΤΐντωβοΚον 733. 4> 6; 736. 68 et saep.; 
739. 6. 

semis (^ as) 737. 1 1 et saep. 

τάλαι/τοι/ 710. 6-8 ; 722.17,26; 784; 806. 
τ€τρά>βολον 722. 20 ; 734. 5, 6; 736. 1 2 

et saep. ; 739. 4, 13• 
τριώβολον 736. 8 ί/ ία^/. ; 739. 1 1, ι6 ; 


χαλκός 722. 26. χαλκοί 743. 23. 


άργυρικά 733. 2 ; 734. 3• 

γλν{ ) 734. 4- 
γραμματίκόν ρ. 263• 

ΐΤΓίκΐφάλαιον 832. 
λαογραφία 714. 23 ; 733. δ- 
ίαυλο ν TTopfioiv 792. 
^efiKa 712. I, 8; 825. 
οιΐΌυ τίλος 788. 

ηρακτορικαΐ Βαπάναι 712. 21. 
'!τροσμ(τρονμ(να 708. 12. 

σίΤίκά 798. 

σίτολογικοι/ 740. 2 2, 2 7• 

σιτομΐτρικόν 740. 23, 2 5- 

σποί/δι? 730. Ι3• 

συ( ) 734. 4• 

τί'λοί 712. 6 ; 788. 

νϊκη 733. 4, 6. 

φορικά, Αρσινόης φορ. 807. 
φο'ροί πόρθμηος 732. 4• 




abire 720. 13. 
αβροχο! 740. 45 ; 810. 

ayeiv 742. 7. 
άγίωργητοί 705. 74• 

άγοράζΐΐν 717. 3 ] 742. 12 ; 745. 2 ; 839. 

άγορανομΰον 713. 1 3. 
αγορανομικό: 836. 
άγορανόμος 722. 4• 
αγοραστοί 798. 

αγυιά 722. 12, 34; 723. 5; 72β. g. 
άγωνιαν 744. 4» Ι3• 
αγων/^ίσ^αι 705. 5°, 5^• 

ά8€λφη 715. 17; 744. ι ; 745. ι. 

άδίλφώου! 727. 1 6. 

άδίλφό: 707. 34; 712. 5, ΐ2 ; 713. 2 1, 30; 

716. 17; 717. 6; 718. 8, ίο; 719. 15; 

725. 6 ; 746. ι ; 791. 

ά8ιακρίτω! 715. 3 6. 

άδικος 717. ιο; 718. 23• 
αδολοί 729. 19 ; 836. 
dft 658. 6; 719. 13• 
a^friffu/ 808. 
αΐθριον 719. 15, ι6. 

αΐξ 807. 

atpfii; 719. 26; 728. 12; 729. 21, 31, 41, 

43; 787; 800. 
aipeatf 716. 22; 729. 41• 
atViiv 709. 12. 
αΐτητης 788. 
αίη'α 725. 4Ι• 
axatm 669. 29, 4Ι• 
άκινδυνοΓ 730. Ι5• 

ακολοΰ(9ωΓ 706. g ; 718. ίο; 729. 14. 

uKoveiv 812. 

αλα (sic) 794. 

&λ(στρα 736. 8, 31, 34, 72, 76; 739. 6. 

άΧηθ€ΐα 715. 29. 
άλλάσσί»' 729. 43• 
άΧληλεγγύη 712. 12, 1 5- 
άΚληλίγγυοί 729. 21. 

άλληλου: 713. II, ι6; 719. 2θ; 724. 6; 
727. 28. 

αΚμυρίί 736. 73; 740. 46. 

αλί 736. 7, 74• 
αμα 658. 13; 798. 
άμ(1ν<ύν 716. 21. 

d/ieXeli/ 707. 31 ; 742. 14. 

άμψτττως 724. ΐο; 729. 1 8. 

άμΐτάστρετΓΤΟί 705. 02. 

α/Λίσ^/ 729. 9• 

α;^/χα 669. 29. 

ά/χοιβΐ7 705. 6 1. 

αμπίλος 707. 23, 3^ ; 729. ΐ8. 

αμπίλών 707. 19; 729. 33, 35• 

αμφισβήτησα 745. 9• 

αμφοδορ 714. 26. Cf. Index V (ί/). 
άμφότιρο! 707. 12; 715. 2; 716. ίο; 728. 

Ι, 28. 
άναβάλλίΐν 729. 6, 28. 
άνάβασί! 742. 6. 
αναβολή 729. 7; 741. 1 3- 
άνάγΐΐν 707. 23, 3^• 

αναγίγνωσκαν 706. 5; 724. ΙΟ; 743. 1 8. 
ανάγκαζαν 717. 2, 1 4• 
άναγράφΐΐν 730. 7• 
άνάίΓπ;σΐί 705. 7 6. 
avaXa^/Sami' 707. 25, 35; 719. 32; 721. 5, 

6, 7 ; 724. 8. 
άναΚωμα 740. 28 ; 825 ; 836. 
άνάπλου: 709. 3• 
αναπομπή ρ. 202. 
άνασκίυά^ί»/ 745. 5• 
άναφαιρίτως 713. Ι9• 
dvaroXjj 725. 12. 
ανα{ ) 833. 
ανηρ 710. 3 ; 719. 24. κατ άνδρα 709. 

άνθομοΚοτ^άν 743. 34, 4°• 
άνθρωπος 705. 1 6, 66; 805. 

άί'ίσΓα'ναι 707. 25. 
άνοικοδομάν 707. 2 7• 
άνόχνωί 743. 39• 
άντίγραφον 719. 3, 4, 9• 
άντικνημιον 722. 34• 
άντιΤΓΟίίΐν 718. 30• 
άνΓΐσυρβολ€ίν ρ. 263. 
άντιτάσσαν 707. 1 7, 3^• 
άντιφωναν 805. 
avvfiv ρ. 26a. 

άνω 712. 20 ; 721. 19; 736. 31 ; 744. 8. 
άνωθΐν 718. 21 ; 745. 4• 
άξιος 725. 2 9-35• 


(iltow 658. 16; 705. 51, 60; 716. 19; 719. 

32; 727. 29; 805; 826. 
άξ/ωσίί 705. 14, 64. 
anaiTflv 718. 23, 29; 727. 18; 803. 
άπαΐτησις 718. 14 ; 722. 28. 
άπαρτίζίΐν 724. 12. 

άπ(Κ(νθ(ρο5 706. 2 ; 716. 6, 29. 
απίλεν^ίροίν 706. 8 J 722. 18. 
anepyaaia 729. 2, 8. 
άπ^ρίλΐίτοί 713. 39. 
άπίρχΐσθαι 709. 4• 

ατΓί'χίίί' 719. 22; 808. 
άπηλίώτη! 719. 17, ^9 '> ^28. 7• 
άττλοίί 719. 9• 

απόγραφαν 713. 34 > 715. 6, 36. 
άηο-γραφη 715. 3©; 719. 24; 808. 
άποΒίχΐσθαι 705. 59• 

άποδίδοι/α» 705. 6ι ; 718. ι8, 2ΐ; 728. ι8; 

729. 15, Ι9> 42, 43; 730. 22; 744. ι6; 

745. 7 ; 746. 3 ; 798 ; 836. 
άπό8οσΐ5 712. ι6; 729. ΐ7; 808. 
άποθνησκίΐν 718. 12. 
άποικος 719. 2, 9, H• 
απολάμβαναν 706. 3• 
άπολλυΐΌί 743. 23• 
aiTo/xcTpeli' 798. 
άποσπαν 724. Ι3• 
απόστελλαν 742. 3; 744. 8. 
άποστ€ ρητής 745. 7• 
άποστολί} 736. Ι3• 
άπότακτοί 729. 3 1 ; 730. 12. 
αποτίνειν 730. 20. 
άπoφaίvt^v 706. 6. 

αργαν 724. 14 ; 725. 35, 4ο; 731. ΐ2. 
άργυρικά 733. 2 ; 734. 3• 

αργύρων. See Index VIII (ί). 

αργυρού! 796. 
apeaKia 729. 24. 

api^/xo's 735. 8 ; 742. 8. 
apiaTfpdf 722. ιο; 723. 5• 
άριστον 736. 23, 28, 35• 
άρνακίς 741. 6. 
αρονρα. See Index VIII (α). 

dpovpijSdj^ 729. 31• 
αρσενικοί 741. 8 ; 832. 
αρσΐνο{{ί) 744. 9• 

3ρσίΓ 708. 5, 1 8. 

άρτάβη. See Index VIII (α). 

apTibiov 738. 8. 
αρτοΓ 736. 9 ^^ •^^'^Ζ''• 

άρ;^αΐοί 729. *], S. 
άρχάον 712. 13• 

ύρχίδίκαστϊ7$•. See Index VII. 

αρχιερατΐίίΐν 718. 3• 

as 737. 2 ί/ saep. 

άσθίναα 726. ΙΟ. 
άσθενΰν 725. 4°• 
ασπά^ίσ^αι 745. 9 Ι βΟδ. 
άσπάραγοί 736. 36• 
άσποράν 740. 42. 
ασποροί 709. Ι4• 
αστικοί 706. 9• 
αστρον 731. 6. 
άσνντίλεστο: 707. 3^• 
ασφαλώς 742. 5, ΙΟ• 
άτακτίΓι» 725. 40• 
άτοκος 729. 1 6, 

α2 718. 19- 
auctor 720. 4• 

ανθ(ντικός 719. 30, 33• 
αυτάρκης 729. 19• 
ανταρκία 729. ΙΟ. 
αντόβεν 726. 12. 
αίιτό^ι 719. 2 2. 

άφ^,λ»! 716. 7, 12, 20 ; 725. 7; 727. ι6; 

740. 44, 45, 47• 
άφίίί/αι 722. 6; 744. ίο. 

άφιστάναι 745. 3• 
άφορος 721. 5• 

«ΧΡ* 707. 37• 

βάδιζαν 743. 29- 
^a^of 669. 8. 
βάτη-ίΐκ 736. 6. 

βασίλίκόί, /3σσ. (γή) 718. 9, Ι5> ^6, 19, 27; 
721. 4 ; 730. 8 ; 810. β. γραμματείς. 

See Index VII. β. ξύλον 669. 1 1, ΐ9• 

βατάνιον 739. 9• 
βάτελλα 741. 1 8. 

βφαιοϊ,ν 719. 23; 730. 21. 

/360α/ωϊ 713. 1 8. 
βήμα 669. 28, 37• 
βίαιος 803. 
βιβλ'ώιον 716. 1 8. 

βιβλιοθήκη 719. 35• 

/^ίβλίον 826. 
βιβλιοφόρος 710. 2. 
βιβλιοφνλάκιον 825. 
βιβλιοφύλαξ. See Index VII. 
βύ)ί- 826. 



βλάβος 729. 20. 

βoau 717. 9, 12, 13, 14. 

βοηθός 734. 4 ; 743. 2θ. 

/3otK<5s 729. 39• 

βούλ(σθΜ 705. 76; 719. 29; 721. 3; 729. 

βουλ(ύ(ίν 70β. 6. 

/3ορρ5ϊ 719. 1 6, ι8; 729. 7• 

βοτάνη 729. 2 2. 

/3oCf 707. 9; 729. 16. 
βραχύς 705. 77• 
;3ωλολογβίι/ 708. 7, ιρ- 
/3ώλο$• 708. 8, 2θ. 
^cc/xdf 785. 

capere 720. 15• 
collega(?) 735. 14• 
conducere 737. 2 ei saep. 
consul 720. 7. 

γάλα 736. 48, 83. 
■ya/iiTOf 795. 
γάμο? 713. 12, 32. 
γfίτω^' 719. 1 6. 
γνίά 713. 1 6. 
yeveVia 736. 56, 57. 
γίνημα 729. 36. 

ye'i^oy 727. 20; 729. 31. 
ytpbios 725. 5; 736. 23, 27, 28, 35; 826. 
γ{ν€σθαι 658. 12. 
γΐωμίτρία 728. 9, 30. 
γεωμΐτρικός 669. I 3, 1 8. 
yecopyflv 718. 19, 23; 728. 4; 740. 38, 40. 
γιωργός 740. 1 6, 21, 33, 35. 
7^705.74; 707.23,36; 715.22,25; 718. 
24; 730. 8, 17, 36; 810. Cf. βασιλικός 

and Upas. Γη 722. 6. 
γίγν€σθαι 705. i8, 67; 707. 34; 709. 6; 

712.16; 716. 21; 718. 29; 719.22,30; 

721. 6 ; 727. 1,4; 729. 1 7, 18, 30 ; 732. 

5, 9; 743. 20, 41; 745. 5; 807; 832. 
γιγνώσκ(ΐν 743. 37; 744. 3. 
y\v{ ) 734. 4. 
yva^ftjs• 736. 37. 
γνήσιος 740. 1 4• 
γι/ώμ»; 729. 43. 

γνωρίζΐΐν 705. 39; 718. 20 ; p. 263. 
γνωστήρ 722. 3 1 ; 723. 4. 
γογγυλί'ί 736. 5• 
γόμος 708. 3, 1 6. 

yovevs 713. 7, 38. 
701/17 729. 40. 

yuvv 722. 24. 

γράμμα 716. 32; 725. 64; 727. 28; 728. 


γραμματΐΰς. See Index VII. 

γραμματικόν p. 263. 

γράφΐΐν nOQ. 3; 716. 31; 718. 24; 719. 6, 
27; 724.10; 725.63; 728.33; 729. 
37; 743.39; 746.5; 787; 811. 

γραφύον 736. 1 6 ; 808. 

γυμνασιαρχών 715. I. 

γυμνασίαρχος 716. I. 

γυμνός 839. 

γυναικΐ'ιος 739. 1 8 ; 741. g. 

γυνή 736. II, 88, 89. 

γνργαθός (γίργαθός) 741. 5• 

8ακτΰΧιον 795. 

δά>£τυλοί 669. 14, 17) 26, 43• 

8ανύζ€ΐν 705. 47 ; 808 ; 836. 

8αν(ΐσμός 799. 
δατταί/άι/ 705. 63. 

δαπάι/7;705. 79; 708.12; 712.6; 729.28; 

736. 98; 739. 3- 
dare 720. 3, 6, 15. 

Βίησις 720. ΙΟ. 
Seiy^a 708. 5. ΐ8• 

Se'iv 718. 14, 18, 29; 727. 19, 20; 729. 4, 

5, 16; 743. 8. δ€Ϊσθαι 718. 24- 
Semveiv 736. 93• 
δΰπνον 736. 36; 738. ι, 4, 7• 
δίΐ'σ?? 729. 2 2. 
8€κάδαρχος 747. Ι. 
δβκατ( ) 741. 17- 

δί|ίΟΓ 722. 2 4. 

δίσμη 742.4, ΐ3• 

6η 705. 6ι. 

δνλοίι/ 707. 21, 3ο; 708. 13; 714. 2ΐ; 

716. 19; 725. 7, 1 1, 48; 740. 30; 800. 
δημόσιος 669. 24; 707. 2, 15; 715. 37• 

{το) δημ. 712. 6 ; 719. 28, 30 ; 725. 56 ; 

729. 2ο; 793; 803. {τά) δημ. 707. 22 ; 

718.11 etsaep.', 729-33; 730.17; 740. 

14; 810. δημ. θίμαΐ^) 740. 29. δημ. 
μίτρον 740. 1 8, 20. δημ. ξΰλον 669. 38. 
δημ. όφΐίλη 719. 23. δημ. πηχυς 669. 34• 
δημ. ρύμη 719. 1 7, Ι9• ^'?Α'• "τράπίζα 721. 
13; 835. δημ. χρηματισμός 712. 12. 
δημοσιοϋν 719. 32. 


?>ημοσΊωσις 719. 3 1. 

διαγραφίίΐ/ 707. 22; 721. 12; 733. 2; 734. 
2; 800; 803. 

διαθήκη 715. I p. 
Stai'peats 718. 7, 10. 
8ιαλογίζεσθαι 709. 4. 
δίαλογισ/ίΟί 709. 2 ; 726. 12. 
διαπίμπΐΐν 727. 24. 
δίαποι/εΐ;/ 743. 2 2. 
δίαττωλίΤι/ 727. 20. 
διάστασίί 669. 37) 4°• 

Βιαστολη 719. 32 ; 743. 28; 793. 

δίατάσσειΐ' 718. 2 5• 
διατίλεΓ»/ 658. 8. 
8ίαυλυν 669. 3Ο• 

Μφορον 708. II, 22 ; 797; 833. 

διαψΐί)8(σθαι 715. 3Ο• 

δίάλ/Λίλοί 707. 23- 

δώάσκάλοί 725. ΙΟ, 14, 43• 

δ(δοναι 716. 22; 719.4, 3°; 725. ι8; 729. 
ΙΟ, 13, 17 ; 731. 7, ίο; 740. 15 et saep.\ 
742. 11; 743. 26, 28, 32 ; 789. 

δκ'πίΐΐ' 727. 5 • 

διίρχ^σθαι 712. ι8; 714. ι8; 729. 26; 

διεη'α 707. 24. 

dievTVxelv 718. 3Ι• 

BUmos 717. 10; 746. 9; 787. 

δικαστηριον 705. 3^• 
δί'κτ; 728. 2 4. 
δίλ€Τον 717. 5j 12. 
δίμοφος 716. 14, 20. 

διό 727. 2 1 ; 826. 
διοίΚΗν 719. 20. 
διπλοίί 729. 20 ; 741. 3. 
δισακκίδιορ 741. 2. 
δίστίγος 719. Ι5• 
δοκεΐΐ' 718. 24. 

dominus 720. 3, 6. 

δόσίϊ 724. 7• 

δοίιλη 714. 15; 722. 14; 723. 3• 

δοΰλοϊ 714. 13 ; 716. 15 ; 724. 3- 

δραχμή. See Index VIII (δ). 

δραχμία'ιος 712. 14 ; 728. 21. 
δρόμος 717. Ι7; Ρ• 263. 

δύνασθαι 726. ιο; 727. II ; 742. ίο; 743. 

36; 744. 12. 
δίισίί 725. 12. 

δωδ(κάδραχμυί 714. 2 2. 
δωδίκάμηνυν 800. 

e 720. 5, 14• 

eav 729. 18. 
eavnep 729. 4, 8. 
eyypanros 707. 2 Ο. 
εγγυητής 707. 33• 
εγκαλεί J/ 728. 40. 

ΐγκτησις 705. 6 1 ; 712. Ι ; 715. ι ; 825. 

(δαφο5 728. 15- 

(θίλΐΐν 705. 43) 62. 

€^t/ios 729. 7• 

εί9ΐΌί 705. 37• 

(θο5 ρ. 263. 

ίίδει/αι 716. 32; 718. 12; 725. 64; 728. 

34 ; 729. 37 ; 745. 6, 8. 
eltos 669. 26 ;"719. 24. 

είκο'ρ 718. 2 2. 

(Is, μιας άντ\ μιας 740. 1 7, 1 8. 

είσάγίΐν 729. 5, 6. 

(Ισβολη 736. 97• 

(ϊσύναι 721. 8 ; 725. 30 ; 729. 2, 14, 3°• 

flaobos 705. 39 ί 719. ι6. 

(Ισπορΐΰΐσθαι ΠΥ1 . 5,7? 744. 4• 

ΐίσφίρΐΐν 1V7. 12. 

(ϊσχρησθαί 717. 2. 

«αστοί 705. 35) 77 ; 711. ι ; 725. 1 1 ; 727. 

22 ; 728. 21 ; 729. ι8, 29, 37• 
€κάτ(ρος 713. 31 ; 729. ΐ9• 

ίκατοστη 708. 8, 9, 2 Ο. 

ίκβαίνπν 708. 7) 19! 729. 36. 

ίκβάΚΚΐΐν 744. ΙΟ. 

ίκβοαν 717. Ι. 

ίκΜχίσθαυ 724. 12. 

έκδιδάσκΐΐν 725. 47• 

εκδίδόναί 725. 5 ; 835. 

(κκαιρος 729. 1 8. 

eKKpoiifiv 725. 37• 

e/iXoyi7 729. 4Ι• 

ΐκμισθοΰν 727. Ι9• 

€Κτακτοί 707. 4• 

fKTivfcv725. 55; 728. 19; 731. 12. 

«τισίί 729. 2 1. 

(κφόριον 743. 2 9• 

eXatoi/ 736. 15; 739. 5, ") 16, 21; 784. 
€λάσσων 669. 44 J 705. 46; 708. 7, 20; 

729. 42. 
fXfieepos 705. 40 ; 722. 6. 
eXtvOfpovp 716. II. 
iXfvdepccais 722. 3 1 ; 723. 4. 
ί>β(ολίκοΓ?) 740. 1 8. 

ΐμβάδ^νσις p. 263. 



ΐμβάλλΐΐν 708. 9, 21 ; 717. ι, ΐ5• 
ΐμμίνΐίν 725. 55• 
ΐμποκίν (?) 707. introd. 

(μφοροί 707. ΙΟ. 

ivbeiKvivai 705. 32. 

eviKa 719. 3Ι• 

ΐΡίχυρασία 712. 3» lOj 16, 19. 

(vexvpovv 729. 44• 

(νθΐσμοί 713. 39• 

iviavTOs 725. 17, 20, 23, 25, 52• 

('νιστάναι 713. 4°; 715. 7 ; 724. 4 ; 725. 2 8 ; 

728. ι6; 729. 14; 730, 4; 732. 2; 808; 

ivoiKflv 705. 4^• 
ίνοίκησις 729. 34• 
ivo'iKLOv 729. 34• 
«νοχλίΤν 705. 7ΐ• 

ένοχος 715. 3Ι• 

eVroXiifos 741. Ι. 

eWos 724. II, 13; 728. 15; 729. 20, 30. 

ΐντνγχάνιιν 717. 1 6. 

(νώπιον 658. 9• 

ΐξαηίΚ(νθ(ροΰν 722. 1 3, Ι7• 

e|a€Tta 707. 4> 5• 

€ξασθΐν€Ϊν 705. 7ΐ• 

e^itmi 705. 52; 722. 27; 724. 12; 725. 

53; 727. 25; 729. 43• 
ίζίνίαντα 729. 15• 
(ξηγητίύΐΐν 714. 6. 
(ξηγητης 727. Ι, 5• 

e'^^s 725. 8; 729. 26. 

ί^οδοί 719. 1 6. 

ίξονσία 706. 8 ; 719. 25. 

ίορτη 725. 36. * 

iopriKOs 724. 6. 

inaytiv, fVayo/xfvai ήμίραι. See Index III (3). 

€παθλον 705. 49- 

eVa/coXov^eti' 729. 29. 

(πανάγκηχ 725. 42. 

(ττάναγκος 707. 6; 729. 1 8, 40. 

ί'πάί/ω 707. 7 ; 740. 30. 

cVet 713. 20; 718. 22 ; 727. 25. 

(πίρωτησις 718. 1 3• 

eVt Γ0 αντό 713. 28; 716. 14; 729. 15. 

ΐπιβάΧΚΐΐν 715. 13, Ι5• 

ίπιγονη 730. 4• 

(πιγραφη 719. 28. 

ίπι8€χ(σθαι 810. 

(πι8ημ(Ίν 705. 36. 

eViStdomi 705. 60; 715. 29, 34 ; 716. 18, 28. 

ίτΓίδοσίϊ 705. 59) 7^• 
f'nifiKTjs 705. 42• 
(πικαταβόλη ρ. 263. 
(πικ^ϊσθαι 729. 2 0. 
(πιΚ€φάΚαιον 832. 
(πικρατΰν 718. 2 8. 
επικριτής 714. 5, 3^• 
(πιΚανθάναν 744. 12. 

€πιμ(λ(ΐα 719. 7 ; 727. 3• 
(πιμ^λύσθαι 727. 15; 729. 22; 743. 43; 
744. 6 ; 745. ίο ; 746. 9 ; 805. 

(πιμιμνησκΐΐν 791. 
ίπινίκια 705. 34• 

fTTtvojav 730. 1 1 ; 810 ; 838. 
(πίπίμπαν 743. 30• 
ίττίσημοί 722. 1 9• 
(πισκοπΐ'ιν 743. 43• 
ΐπίστασθαι 724. 3 J 725. 50. 
('πιστατΐία 803. 
(■πιστάτηί 790. 
eVtarfXXfti' 718. 25. 
ΐπιστολη 746. 4• 
ΐπιστοΧίδιον 789. 

ίπιστράτηγος. See Index VII. 

ΐπιτάσσίίν 725. Ι3• 

iWireXfii/719.26; 726. 20; 727.22-4; 729. 18. 

ΐπίτηρητηί 712. Ι, 8. 

(πίτιμον 725. 55 J 729. 20. 

eniTponevfiv 727. Ι5• 

επιτροπή 743. 32. 

(πίτρο-ηο! 716. 7 j 740. 42. 

eVotKioi/ 707. 37; 729. 34; 838. 

Επτά JO/Liot 709. 7• 

ίρ-γάζΐσθαι 729. Ι9• 

epyaaia 742. II. 

ipyarda 800. 

('ργάτης 739. Ι3• 

epyoi/ 729. 29• 

('ρίβινθος 736. 92. 

fptov 791 

ΐρχΐσθαι 715. 9) 743. 2 4, 4 

€οωταν 74-4-. 6 τα .• 745. *? ; 

714. 4 ; 718 

'/^λ'"'^'" /χο. y, /^ο. ;ί4, 4^ j 805; 839. 
€ρωτάν 744. 6, 13; 745. 7 ; 746. 5; 787 

ereoos 70Κ. ίίο ! 712. το! 714. .< 

fTtpos 705. 63; 712. 10; 714. 4; 718. 2 

719. 25; 725. 30; 726. 19; 729. 3, 

II, 26, 29. 
m 658. 8 ; 705. 23, 34 ; 718. 2 1 ; 727. ι 

729. 3,25, 44; 744. 3. 
fv πράσσΐΐν 822. 
(vboKUv 707. 11; 725. 47, 62; 726. 

727. 26. 




(νΐμγ^της 705. 17, 66. 

(νθάΚΰν 729. 2 2. 

evdews 839. fiSvs 744. 7• 

(νθνμΐτρικόί 669. 5• 

ίΰλογωί 718. 28. 

(υμίνης 705. Ι5, 65. 

fii/ota 705. 31• 

€νρίσκ(ΐν 717. 5> 8 ; 743. 25. 

ίυσχημων 800. 
eiru;(eli' 805. 
ΐυχαριστύν 811. 
€φηβ(ύ(ΐν 711. 4• 
?φ7;)3οί 705. 49• 
εφόδίον 792. 
ίφοδοί 710. 4• 

Ceiyo? 707. 9 ; 741. 8, 9. 
ζητί'ιν 726. ι6; 805. 
ζυμουργόί 754. 
Ciros 736. 27, 60; 784. 

ηΎ€μον€ύΐΐν 800. 

ήγ€μων. See Index VII. 

ήλιος 725. 12. Ήλίοί 722. 6. 

i5/iepa 705. 35; 713. 40; 724. 14; 725. 12, 

37, 41, 43; 731. 7, 11; 736. 68-71, 90; 

804. enayopevai ήμ. See Index ΠΙ {d). 
ημΐΤΐρος 787. αΐ. 
ημιαρτάβιον 708. 6. 

ημιολία 728. 2ο; 730. 27; 833. 

ήμίσΐΐα 729. 36. 
ημισΰνθίσΐί 741. Ι5• 

ημιωβίΚων. See Index VIII ((5). 
ήπαρ 738. 3• 
ήπητρα 736. ΙΟ. 

VTot 669. 8. 

^e'Xeti/ 717. 2; 743. 17, 27, 39; 745. 8. 

θίμα 740. 21, 26, 29, 33> 49• 

etos. See Index VI (α). 

dtpivos 810. 

^ί^λυκόί 832. 

^ήλυί 744. ΙΟ. 

θρίδαξ 738. 6. 

θρΊον (θρϋον) 736. 9, 47• 

θρνον 729. 2 2. 

θυγάτηρ 658. 15 ; 736. 14, 84• 

θυ(ΐν 658. 7, II• 

^ύρα 729. 2 3- 

θυσία 658. 2. 

ιδίόγραφοΓ 719. 27, 34• 

?Sior712. 19; 715.6; 729.28; 807; 836. 

ιδιωτικό: 715. 37 5 718. II, 27; 719. 24. 

ιδιωτικώς 740. 2 Ο, 28, 32. 

'ifpaTiKOs 707. introd. 
Upeiis. See Index VI (d). 
iepop 658. I, 22; 784; 785. 

Upoi, if pa (yrj) 721. 7• 
Ιμάτιον 739. 19. 

ha 709. 2; 718. 30; 742. 6, 8; 743. 37, 
43; 744. 13; 745. 10; 746. 10; 805. 

ίππαρχος 790. 

Ιππιύς 735. 8. 

Ιππικός 741. II. 

Ισάτις 729. 3Ι• 

Ίσίία 731. 5• 

ισοί 715. 7 ; 722. 13 ; 725. 42, 56 ; 729. 2θ, 

43, 44 ; 789. 
Ίστάραι 709. 2, ιο; 725. 46 ; 731. 9• 
item 735. 12. 
ΐτριον 736. 50, 8ί• 

καθά 705. 47 ; 727. 24. 
καθάπερ 728. 24. 

καί9αρόί 708. 5, ι8; 718. 9; 729. 22; 738. 
17, 26, 49, 53. 78, 8ο; 740. 29; 836. 

καθιστάναι 727. 19 ; 836. 
καβότι 705. 62. 
καθώς 725. 44j 5°} 5ΐ• 
καινός 707. 7» 27; 729. 12. 
καιρός 729. 5, II, Ι9> 29• 
καλαμΐία 729. 3, 22, 24~6. 

κάλαμος 669. 28, 41 ; 729. 4, 25, 26 ; 742. 2. 

κάλαμου py ία 729. 4• 

Υίαλάνδαι 747. 2. Kalendac 737. 21. 

καλΐΐν 747. Ι. 

καλόϊ 705. 4ο; 805. καλά? 745. 8. 

καμάρα 729. 34• 
καμηλίτης 710. 4• 

καρποί 721. 7; 729. 32; 730. 19• 

καρπωνύα 728. 25• 

καρπωνΰν 728. Ι, ΙΟ, 29. 

κάρυον 741. 3• 

καταβλάπτ(ΐν 715. 37 5 729. ΐ8. 

κατάγίΐν 708. 3, 1 6. 

κατάλ(ίπ(ΐν 705. 44, 74; 707. 3ο; 729. 2ο. 

KaraXoyeiov 719. 3> 6. 
κaτaλoyη 787 ; 811. 
καταρίτρίΐί' 669. II. 
καταν^ρωττίσρόί 736. II, ΐ8, 54, 94• 



καταντάν 713. 23. 
κατασκΐνάζΐΐν 725. 2 0. 

καταστΓορά 708. introd. 

κατατιβέναι 705. 78 ; 707. 9• 

καταχώριζαν 714. 37 ; 715. 36 ; 719. 38; 731. 

14; 786; 826. 
κατίχίΐν 712. 3; 713. Ι5• 
κατοικίζΐΐν 705. 24. 
/carot/cKcoi 715. 23, 25. 
>faro;(i7 713. 36. 
κάτω 709. 8. 
«Xeueti/ 658. 10; 705. 51; 706. 13; 708. 

6, 19; 715. 9; 721. 13. 
κΐκλα 707. introd. 
KeWapiov 741. 12. 
Kfpa/xtoi/ 729. 36 ; 745. ι ; 784. 
κέραμος 729. Ι9• 
κίρκιστρα 736. 77• 
κΐφάλαων 808. 

κι^ρόϊ 736. 1 6. 

κιθών [ = χίτών) 736. 99• 

κιν8νν(ύ(ΐρ 705. 73 ; 839. 

κίνδυνος 708. ΙΟ, 22; 712. 19; 715. 7, 3^ ; 

730. ι6; 804. 
κλαλίον 796. 
κλίΐ'ϊ 729. 2 3- 
xXrjpoiO^os 719. 16, 17• 
κλ^ροί715. 2 2, 25; 721.6; 728.7; 730.9; 

794 ; 810. Cf. Index V {ή. 

κΚηρονχ{ ) 833. 

κοινός 719. 15; 729. 32; 740. 43• ι^οινώς 
715. 7 ; 729. 5. 6. 

κολλητρα 736. 9Ij 1°°• 
κομΐντάριον 724. 8. 

Ko/ii'Cfn' 708. 14; 730. 20. 
Ko'i'toi' 739. 7• 
κοτΓ^ 729. 3 ; 810. 

κοιτρισμός 729. ΙΟ. 
κόπρος 729. ΙΟ. 
κόπτ€ΐν 728. II. 
κόριον 819. 
Κθσμητ(ύαν 724. Ι. 
κοτύλη 784. 

κοφ»ΌΓ 739. 8. 

icpdCeiv 717. Ι, 9. II, ΐ3• 

κράτιστος 726. Ι7• 
Α:ρι(9ΐ7 708. 8, 20. 
κριθολογί'ιν 708. 6, Ι9• 

κριτηρίου 719. 8 ; 727. 4• 

κριτής 726. 20. 

κτασθαι 705. 7θ• 

κτ^μα 707. 23, 25, 3' 5 729. 5 el saep. 
κτήνος 729. ι6, 39"4ΐ> 43• 

κτητωρ 718. Ι4• 
κυβερνήτης 717. 4• 
Κυριάκος Xoyoj 800. 
κυρίΐΰειν 730. Ι9• 

Kvptor('lord')728. 15; 744. 2. Cf. IndexII. 
«iptos (' valid ') 719. 26; 725. 56; 727. 26; 

728.25; 729.14,34; 730.31; 731.14; 

κώμη 705. 6o, 69 ; and see Index V(3). 

κωμογραμματίΰς 718. 1 3, 20, 26. 

λαμβάνειν 707. 20, 29; 724. 8, 9; 729. i7, 
41; 743. 26; 744. 8. 

λαμπρός 705. 1 9, 39, 68. 
λανθάνειν 705. 30. 
λά^οί 806. 

λαογραφΐϊν 711. 3. 
λαοτ-ραφια 714. 23; 733.5• 
λαογράφος 786. 

λέγειν 70Θ. II ; 707. 14; 717. 2; 744. ιι. 
λ(ΐτουργ(Ίν 705. 79 5 731. 4• 
λειτουργία 705. 7 2. 
λ«τουργΟΓ 792. 

lex lulia et Titia 720. 5, 14. 
Xijyeii/ 729. 17. 

λήμμα 825. 

λτ/ι-όί 729. 19. 
λίνον 736. 75• 
λινοϋφικός 669. 33• 
λιχάς 669. 2 7, 3Ι• 

λίψ 719. 17, ΐ9• 

λογιστηριον 709. Ι, ΙΟ. 

λο'γοΓ 705. 30 ; 708.13; 724. ίο; 725-36; 

726. 14; 727. 23; 729. 13; 732. 5; 

740. 3θ ; 741. Ι ; 800 ; 825. 
λοιπός 707. 24; 709. 8, 12; 713. 36; 716. 

ι6; 724. II ; 725.19; 729. 4 ^^ -^^ζ;^• ; 

732. 13; 740. 32. 
λύε,ν 715. 19; 745. 6; 808. 
λύτρον 722. 3θ, 40 ; 784. 
λυχνία 736. 9ΐ• 
λωρικα 812. 

μα{ ) 736. 73• 
magister 737. 1 2 ί•/ saep. 
μάθησις 724. 3 ; 725. 7• 
μαθητής 725. 15, 21, 2 7, 48. 


μακροπρόσωπος 722. 7> 1 6, 24, 33. 

μαχαφοφόρος 839. 

/txeyas 705. 22. 

μίίζων 669. 44 ; 717. g ; 729. 43. 

μ€λίχρωε 722. 7, 9. 
μψβράί 788. 
μ€μφ(σθαι 706. 12. 
/ieV ουί/ 705. 36. 
/^ej/eiv 744. 5. 
μίρίζΐΐν 713. 29. 

/ni'pof 707. 7; 715. 15, 16; 716. 13-5, 20; 
719. 14 ; 722. 13 ; 728. 8 ; 729. 19, 31 ; 
740. 46, 47 ; 810. 

μΐσίτίΰΐΐν 669. 45• 

μίσο5 722. 7 et saep.; 729. 28 ; 734. 3. 

μ(ταβάλλίΐν 728. 1 3. 

μίταδώόναι 706. 38; 712. i6; 719. 4. 
μίταλλάσσειΐ" 715. ΙΟ. 
μίταφΐρΐΐν 728. II. 
μεταφορά 729. 34• 

/txeTpeti/ 669. 6 ; 735. 7 ; 740. 24, 26, 35• 
μίτρον. See Index VIII (α). 

μίτωπον 722. 8. 

/xe;ipt 725. 12; 729. 7, 9; 731. 3• 

/i^Kof 669. 6, 7• 

μηνιαίο: 725. 5Ι• 

/χ)}τ»7ρ 658. 4; 713. 5, 9> 23. 3^ ; 715. 3, ΐ2, 

ι8; 716. 3> 5> 9. ίο; 719. 2, 8, ίο, ιι ; 

722.11,22,32; 723.2; 726.6; 728. 

2, 3, 28; 733. 5 5 736. 69; 740. 44• 

μηχανή 729. 12, 23, 28. 

μικρό: 741. 4• 

μ(λ(οι/ 669. 3θ• 

μισθό! 724. 5; 725. iS ei saep.; 729. 12 ; 

731. 8 ; 736. 6. 
μισθοίν 707. 14, ι8 ; 729. 3 ί•/ -ί^ζ;^• ; 730. ι 

et saep.; 810. 
μίσθωσι: 707• 17, 20, 24, 35 J 729. 14, 20, 

34,41; 730. 21, 31,39; 740.34; 838. 

μισθωτή: 729. 8 ; 825. 
μνα 728. 2 1. 
μόναχοε 719. 32• 

/lo'j/os 707. 22; 718. II ; 729. 8, 9• 
/χίίσχοί 729. ι6, 39• 
/χύρο(/ 736. 13, 84• 

vavayeiv 839. 
νανβιον 669. II, 
vavkov 792. 

ne 720. 12. 


NeiXo/ierpiKOy 669. 36. 

νίομηνία 725. 8. 

i/eoi 707. 17 ; 718. 8 ; 729. 19; 836. 

νΐόφντος 729. 8. 

νόμισμα 719. 2 1 ; 722. 2 ζ. 

νόμο:, των Αίγνπτίων ν. 706. 7• αστικοί ν. 706. 

g. τη: χωρά: ν. 795. 
νομό:, Επτά νομοί 709. 7• 
νότινο: 729. 9• 
ί/οΓοί 719. 14, 1 6, 1 8. 

ί/ίϊ", τα νυν 811. 

^ei/ia 747. Ι. 

leviKO: 712. Ι, 8; 825. 

hpos 736. 82. 

^uXa/i5i/ 729. 31 ; 730. 10; 

ζνλοκοπύν 706. Ι3• 

^vKoXoye'ia 729. 33• 

ξί\ον 729. 12. Cf. Index VIII (a). 

ξυλοτομία 729. 29. 

όβολιαίο: 729. ΙΟ. 

ό/3ολόί. See Index VIII (δ). 

ογδοον 669. Ι, 2. 
οθ(ν'Ι14:. 21 ; 716. 1 8. 
οΙκία 712. 5, 2ο; 715. ΐζ; 719. ΐ5• 
οικογΐνή: 714. 14; 723. 3• 
οΙκοΒομΰν 707. 7• 
οί«οδό/χθϊ 739• ΙΟ, 12, Ι4• 
οΙκονόμο: 735. 6. 
οίκοπΐδικό: 669. 9• 
οΐκόττίδον 718. 9• 
οιι/ίκόϊ 729. 36. 

οΓι/οί 707. 3; 729. ι6, 19, 24, 27; 745. ι, 
2; 784; 788. 

ολίγο: 718. 2 3• 

δλοί 724. 8; 730. 14; 740. 1 8. όλως 743. 
2 2 ; 744. 4• 

ομννΐΐν 714. 27; 715. 20. 

o/xoios 705. 61; 725. 14• όμοί'ωϊ 708. 8; 

709. 6; 711. 2; 725. 23, 25, 3 1, 34; 

729. 9; 736. 5ΐ, 7ΐ, 8ο; 740. 33• 
όμολογί'ιν 719. 12; 725. ι; 726.4; 785; 

803; 808; 831; 833. 

όμολόγημα 725. 57» ^2. 

Ομολογία 726. 23; 731. Ι3• 
όμοπάτριοί 716. 1 6. 
όνηλάτη: 740. 1 9, 2 2, 2 5- 

ί5ίΊκόϊ 741. ΙΟ. 
όνομα 715. ΙΟ. 



όνος 729. 9- 
όξνβαφον 741. 20. 
δτΓου 728. II. 
οπτίων 735. 5• 
όπτοΓ 707. 2 8. 
οπώρα 729. II. 
οπωροφύλα^ 729. II• 
δπωί 718. 12. 
όργνιά 669. 2 8, 39• 

6ρίζ€ίν 105. 48; 707. 28; 719. 31; 728. 

^ ι8, 36. 

ορκοί 715. 3ΐ• 

opvis 738. 9• 

opos 729. 7, 9• 

δσοΓ 724. 13 ; 729. 25. 

οσπΐρ 729. 6, 4θ• 

όστισοΰί' 719. 2 ζ. 

οστρΐον 738. 5• 

ore 736. 36, 92• 

δτί 717. 2, 13 ; 743. 28 ; 744. 1 1 ; 745. 8 ; 

811; 812. 
ονικάριος 735. 6. 

οίιλη 722. 8, ι6, 24, 34; 723. 5• 
ουτωΓ 706. 6; 707. 32; 743. 35• 
6φ([\€ΐν 712. 1 1 ; 732. 4. 
6φ€ΐλη 719. 24• 
όχομίνιον 729. 3Ι• 
οψάριον 736. 52, 62, 

ο>/^οί' 736. 6 1. 

όχ/τώΓίοκ 729. II ; 731. ίο; 744. 7• 

7Γα( ) 797. 
παίγνιον 736. 59• 
παιδάριοι/ 730. 14 ; 736. 38- 
παώίον 736. 39 > 744. 7• 
τταίΓ 724. Β,Ίο, 13; 725. ι8, 36; 736. ι6 
e/ saep. 

πακτωνίτης 814. 

παλαιστή!. See Index VIII (α), 
ττάλίΐ/ 742. 9 ; 745. 5• 

πάμπολνς 718. 1 1 . 

παναριθμο! ΊΑΆ. 3• 

πανηγύριζαν 705. 35• 

παιτοΓοί 727. 2 8. 

παράβαιναν 725. 53> 54• 

παραγίγνΐσθαι 74:3. 23; 798. 

παρα8(ΐκννναι 72L 12. 

TrapaSet|ti 712. 2. 

παρα^'ώοναι 716. 2 2 ; 729. 2 2, 44 ; 742. 7, 9• 

παράθ(σκ 713. 35• 

παρακαΧΐΐν 744. 6. 

παραλάμβαναν 717. 6; 729. 1 6, 23; 742. 2, 

4; 785. 

παράληψίί 798. 

παραλογισμός 711• 5• 

παραμίναν 724. 13; 725. 43• 

παραμονή 731. Ι3• 

παραπολλύναι 705• 73- 

παρατιθΐναι 713. Ι. 

παράφΐρνα 796 ; 837• 

παραφνλακη 705. 72• 

παρα;^ωρίίι/ 719. 12, 25• 

παραχωρητικόν 719• 20. 

παρύναι 711. 2; 727. II, 25. 

παρεμβολή 736. 33• 

παρβ'Ι 729. 33• 

παρίχαν 717. 4! 725. 9, 42; 729. 4. 9> ^9; 

παρί?( ) 788. 
παρύναι, παραμίνη 713. 2 0. 

πατι^ρ 713. 20 ; 715. ιι; 784. 
πατρικός 716. 15• 
πάτρων 706. 2, ΙΟ. 
πατρώος 715. 28. 

pedes 735. 12. 
π(8ιον 740. 37• 
TreCo'i 724. ΙΟ ; 831. 

πίμπαν 729. 1 1. 
πΐμπτα'ιος 729. 24• 
πΐνταΐτης 725. 49• 

πΐντώβολον. See Index VIII ((5). 

πίριβάλλΐΐν 707. 32. 

πΐρίδαπνον 736. 37• 

πΐρύχΐΐν 719. 3^• 

π^ρισπαν 705. 53 j 743. 36• 

π^ριστΐρά 729. ιο; 736. 29, 79• 

πήχυϊ. See Index VIII (α). 

ma^eti^ 812. 

πιπράσκ(ΐνη\9. 12; 740. 3° ; 784; 819. 

πίστις 705. 32; 727. 21. 

πλακάς 729. 28. 

πλαστός 729. 30. 

πλατίΐα 733. 3• 

7ΐλάτί?Γ 707. 26, 32. 

πλάτος 669. 7, 8, 

πλΐθρον 669. 29- 

πλίΤυ 726. II. 

πλΐΐστα 742. Ι ; 744. Ι ; 746. 2. 

πλ«'ωί/ 705. 3θ; 712. ι8; 725. 39; 833. 

πλην 721. 7; 729. 2 3• 


πΥινθος 707. 28. 

ττΚοίον 799 ; 805. 

nXovs 727. II. 

nouiv 705. 77 ; 707. 29; 709. 3; 713. 11 ; 
718. 10, 14; 722. 28, 36; 725. 13, 441 
726. 14; 727. 11; 729. 7, 24, 29, 37; 
743. 40 ; 745. 8 ; 787 ; 811. 

ποΚ^μος 705. 33. 

π(5λΐί (= Alexandria) 727. 2. (= Oxyrhyn- 
chus) 658. 2, 6 ; 705. 22, 39, 43 ; 714. 7 ; 
732. 2 ; 736. 31. Cf. Index V {a). 

ποΚιτάρχψ 745. 4- 
TTopfioP 792. 

ττόρθμΐίος 732. 4• 

ΤΓορθμίς 732. 2. 

πορίζαν 719. 2. 

πορφύρα 739. 1 6. 

πόσοΓ 742. 4• 

7Γοτα/χ(5ί 800. 

TTore 745. 7• 

ηοτηριον 741. 1 7. 

ποτίζ€ΐιι ρ. 263. 

jroTta/iC)f 729. 13, 24. 

ποΰΓββ9. 27, 32, 38; 722. ι6; 723. 5• 

ττραγ/χα 706. 4', 743. 19• 

irpaypareia 806. 

ττραγματΐυτψ 825. 

ηραγμάτιον 746. 6. 

7Γρακτορ«'α 712. Ι, 8; 825. 

Ίτρακτορικός 712. 21. 

πράκτωρ 733. 2 ; 734. 3• 

irp5^f712. ιι; 728.22; 729. 2ΐ; 730. 27. 

πράσον 736. 28. 

πράσσβιΐ' 708. ΙΟ, 21 ; 718. 25; 822. 

πράτη: 718. 12. 

πριάσθαι 718. 5) Ι7• 

πρόβατον 807. 

προγράφ€ΐν 713. 29; 715. 34; 727. Ι2; 728. 

14; 732. 7, ίο; 786. 
προθΐσμία 124:. 12) 728. ΐ8. 
προύναί 719. 9• 
ττροκίίσ^αι 713. 33> 37; 715. 30 ; 724. ΐ2; 

725. 44, 51. 54, 62; 727. 22; 728. 32, 

4ο; 729. ι8, 37, 42; 732. 8, ιι, μ; 

735. 8; 740. 23, 25; 819. 
προκηρνξΐ! 716. 2 Ο. 
ίτροποιαΐ' 707. 1 6. 
προσβαίνΐΐν 714. ΐ6. 
προσγίγνΐσθαι 784. 
προσ8€Ίσθαι 743. 33• 

Tvpoaehpfvfiv 725. ΙΟ. 

ττροσΐΐναι 705. 3 1 • 

προσεμχ€σθαι 787. 

προσμ^τρΰν 708. 12. 

πρόσοδοί 705. 78• 

■κροσοφύΧΐΐν 730. 25. 

προστιθύναί 10Q. 12; 708. 12. 

προσφάγιον 736. 46, 89; 739. 7, ΙΟ, 12, 14- 

προσφΐμΐΐν 795. 

προ^φων(Ιν 718. 15, 2 0, 2 8. 

Trporepos 705. 48. nporepov 715. 1 6, 

προφΐρΐίν 746. 6. 

προχΐ'φιον 741. 1 4. 

προχρει'α 729. 13 ; 800. 

ττρόχρησίί 729. Ι 7. 

ττρωτοπμαξία 712. 6. 

ττρωτοί, πρώτοι αριθμοί 735. σ. 

πΓ€ρν| 738. ΙΟ. 

πυ^/ώι/ 669. 27, 34• 

πυκνοί 717. 1 6. TTVKVOTepov 805. 

ττυρόϊ 708. 4 ^/ί^ς^. ; 718. 15 ; 735. 9 ; 736. 
8 ^/ saep.; 740. 28, 31, 32, 40; 784; 
789; 833; 836. 

πωλίΐΐ' 729. 43• 
πωμάριον 707. 19, 20. 

πώί 744. 1 2 ; 745. 6. 

quo 720. 12. 

ραφΪ! 736. 75• 
ρητωρ 707. ΐ3• 
ροα 736. 58. 
ροΒών 729. 32. 
rogare 720. 3• 

ρύμη 719. 17, Ι9• 

ρωνννναι, ίρρωσο 719. 5; 742. 15; 743. 44; 
745. ίο; 746. ιι; 798; 805. 

σανΒάλιον 741. ΙΟ. 

σβρίδαλίί 736. 82. 

σήμαιναν 833. 

σημ(ΐογράφθ5 724. 2. 

σημΰον 724. 3• 

σημΐΐονν, σίσημ*ίωμαι 713. 43 ; 719. 6. 

semis 737. 1 1 ei saep. 
σώυτόί 738. 9• 
σιτικός 718. 8 ; 798. 

σίτινος 729. 44• 

σιτολογκόί 740. 1 7, 2 2, 27. 

σιτόΧόγοί. See Index VII. 



σιτομ(τρικόν 740. 23, 25. 
σιτοπόητρα 739. 4• 
σίτοί 708. II, 22. 
σκαφι^ 729. 28. 
σκίπη 785. 
σχοιιτλίοι/ 741. Ι9• 
σόλιον 741. 8. 
σπίίρΐΐν 729. 3^• 
anevbeiv 658. 7) H• 
σπί'ρ/χα 740. 36 ; 833. 
σπιθαμή 669. 27, 32. 
στΓΟί/δή 730. 12. 
σπου8άζίΐν 746. 8. 
στάδιον 669. 29. 
OTfyaCe»' 729. 23. 
στ€ρ(όί 669. 7 ; 836. 
στ€φανοί 736. 56, 57• 
στημων 739. 1 8. 
στολ»7 839. 
στοχάζΐσθαι 705. 75• 

στρατηγός. See Index VII. 
συ( ) 734. 4 ; 797. 
συγγραφών 707. 35 5 729. Ι7• 
συγγραφή 713. 12, 32, 3^• 
συ)'καΓα;^ω/3ΐ'^€ΐί' 719. 34• 
σνγχρηματίζίΐν 727. 21. 
συγχωρΰν 727. 9• 
συγχώρησα 727. 14) 2 0. 
συκάμινο! 661. introd. 
σι^λλί'γαι/ 743. 3^• 
σνμβάλλΐΐν 717. 4• 
σνμμαχύν 705. 33• 
σνμμίτρος 669. 44• 
συμπληρωσις 729. 42• 
σνμττροσγίγνίσθαι 743. 33• 
σνμφντος ΙΟΊ. ιο; 729. 2 2, 

σνμφωρΐ'ιν 719. 20 ; 724. 5; 728. 37; 729. 


σνί/άγειν 705. 48; 708. II, 22; 833. 
σνναγορασμόί 791. 
συί'ανάμιγοϊ 718. 1 6, 19? 27. 
συνίδρΐύΐΐν 717. 8, II. 
au^eTTtSiSoiOt 716. 28, 30. 
σννηγορΐΐν 707. 14• 

συνιστάναι 715. 35 5 724. 2 ; 726. 12; 727. 

12, 25; 787. 
σννταξις 729. 12. 
σνρτιμάν 729. 42• 
σνντίμησα 729. 1 6, 17, 40-2. 
σΐ'ί'τυγ;(άΐ'£ΐΐ' 743. 37• 

σννωνη 705. 77• 
σύστασις 726. 2 1. 
σφόΒρα 705. 7ΐ• 
σφυρ'ις 741. 3• 
σχοινίον 669. Ι, 3) 1 8. 
σχοινισμός 797. 
σώ^ίίΐ/ 705. 23. 
σωτήρ 705. 7, 66. 

τάλαΐ'7-οΐ'. See Index VIII (/5). 

ταμα,ον 705. 72, 73• 

τα ιΌν 811. 

ταριχύα 736. 5• 

τάσσειν 122. 20 ; 729. 17. 

ταφί, 736. 13, 84. 

ταχύς 743. 2 1. 
re'Ki/oi/ 713. 19; 716. 8. 
TeKToviKOs 669. 35 ; 729. 12. 
τ€κτων 129. 12; 739. Ι5• 

reXeii/ 707. 2 2, 24• 

τΐλίίος 707. 31 ; 729. 39; 4°• 

τίλβυτάν 713. 2 ο. 

TfXevTij 713. 18, 

τίλος 712. 6, 21 ; 724. 9; 788. 

TfXmvHV ρ. 263. 

Τίλώντ^ί 732. 2. 

Τ€μΐνοί 785. 

Τΐτάρτη 795. 

τετράγωνος 669. 21. 

Τ(τρα(τία ΙΟΊ. 2 1. 

Τίτραχηίνικος 836. 

τΐτρώβαλον. See Index VIII (ί^). 
Te;^i/>; 725. 8, 49• 
textor 737. 3 ^"^ J^^^/• 
rt^ei/ai 725. 61 ; 742. 5; 745. 2. 
TLKTeiv 744. 9. 
rt/zai- 705. 36. 

τιμή 719. 2o; 728. 38; 739. 3, 16, 21; 
734; 798. 

τισάνη 736. 51. 

τόκος 705. 49; 712. 6, 14, 2γ; 728. 2o; 

τοπαρχία 734. 3 ; 808. Cf. Index V (a). 

τοπογραμματΐύς 833. 

τόπος 105. 73; 707. introd. ; 715. 16; 721. 

12; 734. 3; 742. 5; 833. 
τοσούτος 717. I. 
τράπεζα, δημοσία τρ, 721. Ι3; 835. ΆσκΧη- 

πιάΒον τρ, 806. 
τρίφίΐν 725. 15, 45 ; 729. 4°• 


τρ'φανον ββΐ. introd. 
τρίΐτΊα 729. 4, 5, ΙΟ. 
rpikayvvoi 741. 12. 
τρισκαιδίκαΐτηί 714. I'J. 

τριωβολον. See Index VIII (3). 

τρόπος 800. 

τροφή 705. 78. 

τροχοί 707. 7, 27, 29; 729. 32. 

τυροί 729. ΙΟ. 

τυχ»7 715. 2 7• 

vyela 715. 29• 

vytatVeif 743. 43 > ^45. 10; 746. 2; 805. 

νγιψ 729. 23; ρ. 263. 

vbptvpa ρ. 263. 

νδροπάροχος 729. 13, 1 6. 

νΒροφυλακΐϊν 729. 23. 

ν8ροφν\ακία 729. 7• 

ύδωρ 738. 9• 

ίελονί 741. Ι5• 

ίίκι? 733. 4, 6. 

νίόί 668. 13; 705. 7°; 724. 3; 727. 5• 

ντταρξΐ! 707. Ι5• 

νπάρχαν 712. 5 ; 716. 12 ; 718. 1 6 ; 719. 13 ; 

722. 12; 723. 3 5 727. 13; 728. 23; 

729. 21 ; 730. 30. 

νιτηρίτης 712. Ι7• 
υπισχνΰσθαι 745. 4• 
inobecKvvvai 743. 38. 
υτΓοδόχιον 729. 28. 
viroXeirrtiv 729. 6, 25. 
{ΐ7Γολο)/€ίν ρ. 263. 
νπο\ογίζ(ΐν 729. 1 3. 
vjroXoyof 721. 4• 
υπόμνημα 719. 4, 35• 
ίητοσημαονν 658. 1 6. 
varepov 718. II. 
νφηγιΊσθαι 743. 42• 
{lif οί 669. 8. 

φάγροί ρ. 264. 

^mV««/ 708. 5, 18; 718. 30; 746. 8; 811; 

φαινόλης 736. 4> ΙΟ, 77• 
φύσις 805. 
φίρι/)? 795 ; 837. 

φιλάνθρωπος 705. 21, 69, 75• 

φίλια 705. 32; 743. 21. 

φίλος 706. 6 ; 724. 2 ; 742. 8, g ; 745. 9• 

φόρ^τρον 740. 19) 22, 25, 27. 

φορικός 807. 

φοροί 707. 3> 21, 24; 727. ι8; 728. 31; 

729. 31, 32; 730. ΐ2, 2θ, 23; 732. 4• 
φροντίζ(ίν 727. ΐ5• 
φροντιστής 727. 14• 
φυλακίτης 803. 

φύλαξ 729. II ; 803. 

φνλάσσιιν 705. 47> ^2; 729. 1 1 ; 804. 

φντόν 729. 20, 2 2. 

Xat'peti/ 705. 7, 20, 58, 68 ; 708. 2, 15 ; 716. 
2 ; 719. 4, 12 ; 724. 2 ; 728. 37 ; 732. 4 ; 
735. 7 ; 742. Ι ; 744. ι ; 746. 2. 

χαλκίον 736. 6, ΙΟΟ. 

χαλκοί 722. 26; 743. 23. 

χαλκούς 717. 8, ΙΟ. 

χάρΐί 705. 63. χάριν 743. 29; 804. 

χύρ 669. 4θ. 

χειριστής 734. 2. 

χ6φο( ) 799. 

χΐΐρογραφία 719. 33• 

χ€ΐρόγραφον 706. 4, 5 Ι 719. 9, 3°, 33 ; 745. 2. 

χΐρσάμπελος 729. 30. 
χέρσος 740. 46. 
χ<( )739. 3• 
χιλίαρχος 708. 1 3- 

χιραλΐ'υς 661. introd. 

χιτώι/ 725. 29-34; (κί^ώι») 736. 99• 

χοΐΜ^ 740. ιΒ ί•/ ίβ^/». ; 789. 

χορη•γ(Ίν 725. 20, 39) 5°; 833. 

χο'ρτοί 705. 78; 728. 8, 38; 730. ιο; 

χους (' inound ') 729. 6. 
χοΐις (measure). See Index VIII (α). 
xpda 729. 4, 8, 17 ; 731. 7 ; 745. 6. 
Xpijpa 705. 52. 

χρημάτιζαν 710. I ; 727. 8; 728. ι. 

χρηματισμός 712. ΙΟ; 719. 3; 835. 
χρηματιστής 719. 7 ; 727. 3• 
χρήσθαι 745. 6. 
χρήσιμος 705. 75• 

χρό^οϊ 707. 1 1 ; 712. 1 8 ; 714. 38 ; 718. 1 1 ; 
719. 13 ; 724. 4, 9. 1 1, ^Ζ', 725. 9, 1 1, 
38, 49; 728. 35; 729. 17 d saep.; 732. 
II ; 786. 

χρυσούς 795. 

χρυσοχόος 806. 

χώμα 729. 7, 8, 9, 23 ; 740. 46 (?). 

χώρα 709. 8 ; 795. 

χωρΰν 705. 40. 



χωρίον 705. γο. 

χωρίς 719. 27; 724. 6; 725. 45; 729. 30, 
31, 34. 

yj/eiiBeaeai 714. 3Ι• 

ψήκτρα 741. 7• 

ι/τιλοϊ 707. introd. ; 715. 16. 

δδί 736. 92. 
ωνύσθαι 721. 3• 
ώι/ι; 732. 2. 
ωόι/ 784. 

ώρα 747. 3 ; 804. 

ώρογράφοί 710. 3• 

ώστί 729. 31 ; 730. 

ίο; 743. 27. 


...i'rv, ti" iV; ;:,.^ plate i M']\'^ 

^-♦«iT*"- *> ^__. ^l A. >• 



'^-^r-. .. -.,.,. 


NO. 654 ' ■ ■ μΜ| 


NO. 66 ^ 




te^,^,r^.^^ * 

^^; ATc^ Γ2 : -i ji 


^*:.. i-lM 'til 



' ■ Q ^^ ■ ''V ' " ■ Vat : ; ., j , ., .[^Ji ■ -^ 






. '>. 

■"■'.: > 



,. PLATE IV s:""]•- 


ύ' if ^ 


#1 3<? ^~^, 







..., „*<«^1-' 







1» i 0*^ 



. Λ 



• ΐ--. 



^ t-~ — 

,•7^/7 r 

Λ-4 / 



.^» -•-"-■■ ;ί«ΑΛί^^ΓΛ 

NO. 735 

i • 

J^v- ■.. 

NO. 661 




f |>f;^f^^ra<>i ^rrc 

f Afn^lcA|Hui cvimVcoinrAi 

in ^Ket Λ U ο c Κ οίχι li*:» ίρ ' ,^ 

c4^| luf 3r4i Vf-^at\W|H f\M4^a^^^^ 

. ί« 


NO. 668, COL. λ-ίϋ 



■■■'% • 



-■ -. . fc, ^ . ' NO. 688 

\^^ « . . 'J. -< 

Ijl:-.^ -»^** 'S^^i, 


■ \ 

^4^ * 




-*' .J 

NO. 720 

NO. 686 


L :u.i:MI'-/W 

.^ t' r-i- Ji 







:Λ ^...iii'S», 


Jlfi-^*^ i/ 

NO. 737, COL. 1 



jr-HE EGYPT EXP LOR A TION FUND, which has conducted Archaeological research 
in Egypt continuously since 1883, m 1897 started a special department, called the Graeco- 

Roman Branch, for the discovery and publication of remains of classical antiquity and early 

Christianity in Egypt. It is hoped to complete in the next few years the systematic excavation 

of the site of Oxyrhynchus under the direction ^Drs. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 

The Graeco-Roman Branch issues annual volumes, each of about 300 quarto pages, with 

facsimile plates of the more important papyri, under the editorship qfOrs. B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. 

A subscription of One Guinea to the Branch entitles subscribers to the annual volume, and 

also to the annual Archaeological Report. A donation of £2 ζ constitutes life membership. 

Subscriptions may be sent to the Honorary Treasurers— for England, Mr. H. A. Grueber ; 

and for America, Mr. Gardiner M. Lane. 



For 1883-4. By Edouard Naville. Thirteen Plates and Plans. {Fourth and Revised 
Edition^ 25J. 

II. TANIS, Part I. For 1884-5. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Sixteen Plates 
and two Plans. {Second Edition, \%%%.) 25J. 

III. NAUKRATIS, Part I. For 1885-6. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. With 

Chapters by Cecil Smith, Ernest A. Gardner, and Barclay V.Head. Forty-four Plates 

and Plans. {Second Edition, 1888.) 25J. 


By Edouard Naville. Eleven Plates and Plans. {Second Edition, 18S8.) 25J. 

V. TANIS, Part II ; including TELL DEFENNEH (The Biblical ' Tahpanhes ') 
and TELL NEBESHEH. For 1887-8. By W. M. Flinders Petrie, F. Ll. Griffith, 
and A. S. Murray. Fifty-one Plates and Plans. 2e,s. 

VI. NAUKRATIS, Part II. For 1888-9. By Ernest A. Gardner and F. Ll. 
Griffith. Twenty-four Plates and Plans. 25J. 


Antiquities of Tell-el-Yahudiyeh. An Extra Volume. By Edouard Naville and 
F. Ll. Griffith. Twenty-six Plates and Plans. 25J. 

VIII. BUBASTIS. For 1889-90. By Edouard Naville. Fifty-four Plates and 

Hans. 2 6 J. 

Containing : 

I. THE SIGN PAPYRUS (a Syllabary). By F. Ll. Griffith. 
II. THE GEOGRAPHICAL PAPYRUS (an Almanack). By W. M. Flinders Petrie. 
With Remarks by Professor Heinrich Brugsch. {Out of print.) 

By Edouard Naville. Thirty-nine Plates. 25i. 

XL AHNAS EL MEDINEH. For 189 1-2. By Edouard Naville. Eighteen 
Plates. And THE TOMB OF PAHERI AT EL KAB. By J. J. Tylor and F. Ll. 
Griffith. Ten Plates. 255. 

XII. DEIR EL BAHARI, Introductory. For 1892-3. By Edouard Naville. 
Fifteen Plates and Plans. 25^. 

XIII. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part I. For 1893-4. By Edouard Naville. Plates 

I-XXIV (three coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 3θί. 

XIV. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part II. For 1894-5. By Edouard Naville. Plates 

XXV-LV (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30J. 

XV. DESHASHEH. For 1895-6. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Photogravure and 
other Plates. 255. 

XVI. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part III. For 1896-7. By Edouard Naville. Plates 
LVI-LXXXVI (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30J. 

XVII. DENDEREH. For 1897-8. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Thirty-eight 
Plates. 25i. (Extra Plates of Inscriptions. Forty Plates. 10s.) 


Flinders Petrie. Sixty-eight Plates. 25^. 

XIX. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part IV. For 1899-1900. By Edouard Naville. 
Plates LXXXVII-CXVIII (two coloared) with Description. Royal folio. 30J. 

XX. DIOSPOLIS PARVA. An Extra Volume. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. 

Forty-nine Plates. 25 j. {Out of print ^ 

1900-1. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Sixty-three Plates. 25J. (Thirty-five extra Plates, loj.) 

XXII. ABYDOS, Part I. For 1 901-2. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Eighty-one 
Plates. 35i. 

XXIII. EL AMRAH AND ABYDOS. An Extra Volume. By D. Randall-MacIver, 

A. C. Mace, and F. Ll. Griffith. Sixty Plates. 25J. 

XXIV. ABYDOS, Part II. For 1902-3. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Sixty-four 

Plates. 251. 


Edited by F. Ll. Griffith. 

I. BENI HASAN, Part I. For 1 890-1. By Percy E. Newberry. With Plans 
by G. W. Eraser. Forty-nine Plates (four coloured). 255. 

Π. BENI HASAN, Part IL For 189 1-2. By Percy E. Newberry. With Appendix, 
Plans, and Measurements by G. W. ERASER. Thirty-seven Plates (two coloured). 251. 

III. EL BERSHEH, Part I. For 1892-3. By Percy E. Newberry. Thirty-four 

Plates (two coloured). 25J. 

IV. EL BERSHEH, Part II. For 1893-4. By F. Ll. Griffith and Percy E. 

Newberry. With Appendix by G. W. Eraser. Twenty-three Plates (two coloured). 25^. 

V. BENI HASAN, Part III. For 1894-5. By F. Ll. Griffith. (Hieroglyphs, 
and manufacture, &c., of Flint Knives.) Ten coloured Plates. 25J. 


EXPLORATION FUND. For 1895-6. By E. Ll. Griffith. Nine coloured Plates. 255. 

VII. BENI HASAN, Part IV. For 1896-7. By F. Ll. Griffith. (Illustrating 
beasts and birds, arts, crafts, &c.) Twenty-seven Plates (twenty-one coloured). 25i. 

Part L For 1897-8. By N. de G. Davies and F. Ll. Griffith. (Including over 400 
facsimiles of hieroglyphs.) Thirty-one Plates (three coloured). 25J. 


Part II. For 1898-9. By N. DE G. Davies and F. Ll. Griffith. Thirty-five Plates. 25^. 

X. THE ROCK TOMBS OF SHEIKH SAID. For 1 899-1 900. By N. de G. 
Davies. Thirty-five Plates. 25^. 


N. de G. Davies. Twenty-seven Plates (two coloured). 25^. 


N. de G. Davies. Thirty Plates (two coloured). 255. 

XIII. THE ROCK TOMBS OF EL AMARNA, Part I. For 1902-3. By N. de G. 

Davies. 25i. 


I. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part I. For 1897-8. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. 25J, 

II. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part II. For 1898-9. By B. P. Grenfell 
and A. S. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. 25J. 

III. FA YUM TOWNS AND THEIR PAPYRI. For 1 899-1 900. By B. P. 

Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and D. G. Hogarth. Eighteen Plates. 25J. 

IV. THE TEBTUNIS PAPYRI. Double Volume for 1900-1 and 1901-2. By 

B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and J. G. Smyly. Nine Collotype Plates. {Not for sale.) 

V. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part III. For 1902-3. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 255. 

VI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part IV. For 1903-4. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. 25J•. 


(Yearly Summaries by F. G. Kenyon, W. E. Crum, and the Officers of the Society, with Maps.) 

Edited by F, Ll. Griffith. 
THE SEASON'S WORK. For 1 890-1. By Ed. Naville, Percy E. Newberry, and 
G. W. Fraser. 2s. 6d. 
For 1892-3. 2i. 6d. 
„ 1893-4. 2s. 6d. 

„ 1894-5. y.6d. ContainingReport(withPlans)ofD.G. Hogarth's Excavations in Alexandria. 
„ 1895-6. IS. With Illustrated Article on the Transport of Obelisks by Ed. Naville. 

„ 1896-7. 2i. 6d. With Articles on Oxyrhynchus and its Papyri by B. P. Grenfell, and 

a Thucydides Papyrus from Oxyrhynchus by A. S. Hunt. 
„ 1897-8. 2s. 6d. With Illustrated Article on Excavations at Hierakonpolis by W. M. Flinders 

„ 1898-9. 2s. 6d. With Article on the Position of Lake Moeris by B. P. Grenfell and 

A. S. Hunt. 
„ 1899-1900. 2s. 6d. With Article on Knossos in its Egyptian Relations by A. J. Evans. 
„ 1900-1. 2s. 6d. 

„ 1901-2. 2s. 6d. 

„ 1902-3. 2s. 6d. 


ΛΟΓΙΑ IH20Y: ' Sayings of Our Lord,' from an Early Greek Papyrus. By B. P. Grenfell 
and A. S. Hunt. 2s. (with Collotypes) and 6d. nett. 

Oxyrhynchus. By B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. is. nett. 

ATLAS OF ANCIENT EGYPT. With Letterpress and Index. {Second Edition:) ^s. 6d. 
COPTIC OSTRACA. By W. E. Crum. 10s. 6d. nett. 

Slides from Fund Photographs 

may be obtained through Messrs. Newton of Co., 3 Fleet Street, E.C. ; 

and Prints from Mr. R. C. Murray, 37 Dartmouth Park Hill, N.W. 

Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund: 


Agents : 







3 1197 22884 0093